Justice in Michael Bryant case
- Thread starter CDNBear
- Start date
All that comes under the heading of "Who shot John". While on paper it looks suspicious, it has nothing to do with the particular merits of the case. Was he a Liberal Atty. General? :lol::lol::lol:
You already said that, but saying it twice doesn't make it twice as likely. :smile:
The only context I can see for Liberalman's claim is that the quality of defense one has in court is impacted by the financial resources one has available. In other words, if you can afford it, you will most likely be better defended, than if you have to rely on court appointed defenders or even your local lawyer available to a smaller or blue collar community. In his job as Attourney General, he would have had to work with some of the top lawyers in the nation (and build relationships with some of them), and some of them might even have been willing to play a bit of the favour game that we all know goes on politics.
That being said, the Ontario gov't did what they had to do to avoid the appearance of impropriety and really the charges don't seem to be justified by the evidence, as seen by the public.
That being said, the Ontario gov't did what they had to do to avoid the appearance of impropriety and really the charges don't seem to be justified by the evidence, as seen by the public.
I actually have to disagree. I've been represented by one of the best lawyers in Ontario, Dennis Reeve. If you need to check on his ability, look up the Caribana shooting in Tdot a few years back. The shooter walked. Dennis was his lawyer.
Not only was his fee reasonable, he allows you pay it off over time, paying what you can, when you can. With the only caveat being, "If you stiff me, lose my number".
This may be true, but in such a high profile case, that could be political suicide.
Absolutely. The video evidence was the clinch pin for my opinion. The witness statements that made it to the news, merely complimented the video.
From the onset, I was positive he would walk. I was sure there would be a trail. I still think Bryant has some culpability here, but as to the charges he faced, he was innocent.
Easy for you to say, have you ever been privileged to have an angry drunk grabbing at your steering wheel while driving a convertible?
What is an average liberal? Your idiocy knows no bounds.
The defense didn't have to do anything in the case, he could had duty council and the result would have been the same. The Crown chose to drop the charges because there wasn't a reasonable chance of conviction.
Also, the prosecutor appointed was from BC, chosen specifically to avoid any charges of bias. In my opinion, the whole situation was pretty transparent.
Last edited:
With pleasure. Only because the law has prevailed here.
Anyone that uses the term murderer to describe Bryant, is a few marbles shy of a whole bag.
Self-defense......in fact, not EVEN self-defense, in fact an attempt to escape an attack, is NOT murder.
Give your head a shake.
If you attack someone, and get your ass killed, you get exactly NO sympathy from me.
Unless the person is hanging onto your car for dear life when you put the pedal to the metal
Ah......a bit of advice...
1. Don't put the muzzle of a loaded pistol in your mouth.
2. Don't jump off things higher than your house.
3. Don't wrap plastic bags around your face.
4. Don't HOLD ON TO, OR LEAN IN AND GRAB THE STEERING WHEEL, OF A CAR THAT IS DRIVING AWAY!!!!!!!!
GEEZUS.
Call it the Survival Guide for Drooling Morons: How to Avoid the Darwin Awards
Last edited:
Just a quick question. Why would this crazy man hang onto someone else's car for dear life? Did he expect the owner to give him the car? Do a bit of reading Liberalman. There were dozens of witnesses.
Very unusual from a Defence perspective - But the case law was already ruled upon - character about 1980 or so in Ontario Superior Court - This guy had anger problems - was drunk - did this a number of times - and recently - sad to say that he died - but he literally dug his own grave.
Also Bryant could afford the best lawyers and investigators to find out this guys every move for the past number of years - So I agree with Blatchford that Joe Smuck would have gone to trial because of being unable to afford top notch Lawyers and PI's.
Would you disagree with that point or agree?
Sometimes shyte happens even to the bigwigs. At least Shepperd was an equal opportunity nutbar....