Manslaughter for Passenger Fatality..

Forum Sponsor
twinn said:
I dont usually agree with Turbo but he is right this time.

Crown needs to prove both intent to do the crime and the actual act of doing the crime.
Click to expand...

If that applies with this charge, then it may not be a simple as one would hope. Not hard to prove the perp had intent to run, but intent to kill her by doing so? That's more than just a stretch.

I hope they have all their bases covered on this.
 
nesobriquet said:
Really? You want to be reimbursed for a bit of brass and lead?
Your offer doesn't exactly suggest much conviction.

Plus there's this; bullet(s) plural? So you are also a poor shot. I'd say our chances of finding someone better qualified for the task are better than excellent.
Click to expand...

Don't forget the copper jacket....
 
If he didn't make an incriminating statement/confession, chances are his lawyer will use the same lost sight strategy that is promoted here for defending running charges and he'll more than likely walk. Hell, they had videotape of Bryant hitting then killing Darcy Shepard, and the crown didn't have enough evidence to peruse charges. If turbot wasn't such an over the top pro cop/law and order defender, he'd be in here defending the accused's right to a fair trial as vehemently as he defended Bryant, but we know he only picks his spots/stats that work for him, and the likelihood of that happening is pretty slim.
 
nesobriquet said:
Really? You want to be reimbursed for a bit of brass and lead?
Your offer doesn't exactly suggest much conviction.

Plus there's this; bullet(s) plural? So you are also a poor shot. I'd say our chances of finding someone better qualified for the task are better than excellent.
Click to expand...

Price is for the deed not the bullets.

And a Bullet for every piece that was torn from the torso and sent across the 401.

If you want, you can come and look at my targets from this past Tuesday night. I have no problem hitting center mass friend
 
FullMotoJacket said:
Hell, they had videotape of Bryant hitting then killing Darcy Shepard, and the crown didn't have enough evidence to peruse charges.
Click to expand...
The Crown withdrew charges because it felt it didn't have a reasonable chance of conviction. Big difference, in legal terms.
A witness came forward with photographs of Shepard attacking a motorist in the exact same manner as Bryant alleged he was attacked.
Bryant's lawyer shared those photographs with the Crown; she was under no obligation to do so and in fact took a huge risk doing so.
The Crown considered all the evidence and decided that it was in everyone's best interest to withdraw the charges.
To the best of my knowledge (and I'm no expert but I did read about it extensively) there is no videotape of Bryant hitting or killing Shepard. At best, there would be video, if there is any video, of Shepard assaulting Bryant, hanging onto the steering wheel, and ulimately and tragically striking a stationary object on the sidewalk as he forced the vehicle to turn into the curb.
Bryant then immediately pulled into a hotel and used the phone to call 911, then waited for the police.
Far cry from causing a completely passive passenger to fall off, then flee, abandoning her to be killed by traffic, and avoiding police for three weeks.
 
CanadianBiker said:
(and I'm no expert but I did read about it extensively)
Click to expand...

Were you staying at a Holiday Inn at the time?

Save us the time of having to read your opinion stated as if it were fact. Turbot's already cornered the market on that.
 
nesobriquet said:
If that applies with this charge, then it may not be a simple as one would hope. Not hard to prove the perp had intent to run, but intent to kill her by doing so? That's more than just a stretch.

I hope they have all their bases covered on this.
Click to expand...

You do not need to prove intent to kill for the charge of manslaughter. That's what sets it apart from homicide.
 
FullMotoJacket said:
If he didn't make an incriminating statement/confession, chances are his lawyer will use the same lost sight strategy that is promoted here for defending running charges and he'll more than likely walk.
Click to expand...

Please explain this "lost sight strategy" you speak of.

Thanks.
 
^ (shortstop)

So that will be one of if not the very reason they chose manslaughter.

Of course we all hope they have the right guy. But I think what happens often is self-incrimination before lawyering up. It can happen as soon as a person opens their mouth. I guess if someone goes the lawyer route from the beginning, the lawyer can speak totally for the client. i.e. perp is allowed to say nothing ever unless called to the stand?

Assuming they have right guy, I hope he gets his entire term that's appropriate in a prison, and not just assigned to being in front of the tube under house arrest.
The guy is obviously hard wired differently than most people and there likely isn't much hope of him being a positive contribution to society anytime soon if ever.
 
DS2 said:
Please explain this "lost sight strategy" you speak of.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

As long as he hasn't given any incriminating evidence, his lawyer can state he was not on the motorcycle at that time in that place. It's up to the prosecution to prove otherwise. Someone at the scene would have had to have seen his face. Highly unlikely if he was wearing a full face helmet, at night, and at speed. It's similar to why you get a fine and points if pulled over for running a red and only a fine if caught by a red light camera, or fine and points for speeding and only got a fine when photo radar was legal. It's impossible for the crown to prove that the registered owner was driving the vehicle at the time of the infraction.
 
FullMotoJacket said:
As long as he hasn't given any incriminating evidence, his lawyer can state he was not on the motorcycle at that time in that place. It's up to the prosecution to prove otherwise. Someone at the scene would have had to have seen his face. Highly unlikely if he was wearing a full face helmet, at night, and at speed. It's similar to why you get a fine and points if pulled over for running a red and only a fine if caught by a red light camera, or fine and points for speeding and only got a fine when photo radar was legal. It's impossible for the crown to prove that the registered owner was driving the vehicle at the time of the infraction.
Click to expand...

That's what I'm afraid of. Judging by the time it took to book him, it seems like the evidence might be circumstantial....
 
FullMotoJacket said:
As long as he hasn't given any incriminating evidence, his lawyer can state he was not on the motorcycle at that time in that place. It's up to the prosecution to prove otherwise. Someone at the scene would have had to have seen his face. Highly unlikely if he was wearing a full face helmet, at night, and at speed. It's similar to why you get a fine and points if pulled over for running a red and only a fine if caught by a red light camera, or fine and points for speeding and only got a fine when photo radar was legal. It's impossible for the crown to prove that the registered owner was driving the vehicle at the time of the infraction.
Click to expand...
Thanks.

andrei14 said:
That's what I'm afraid of. Judging by the time it took to book him, it seems like the evidence might be circumstantial....
Click to expand...
This would be unfortunate, especially if he's given a slap on the wrist due to a lack of evidence.

I suspect an outcome such as this would only encourage more to "run" when seeing the lights go on.
 
When I look at this i ask myself: why the charge of "Manslaughter"

If she had fallen off as a result of his stupid driving/attempt to evade etc. charge would more likely be that he would be either:
-Dangerous Driving causing death,
-Stunt driving causing death,
-flight from police causing death or
-vehicular manslaughter..

the fact that he was charged with straight Manslaughter indicates more than likely that he purposly unloaded her from the motorcycle (I.e. shoved her off). with or without intent to kill (I guess we will find out if it is voluntary or involuntary)....

...Trying to lighten his load?


Food for thought.
 
2smokewilleh said:
When I look at this i ask myself: why the charge of "Manslaughter"

If she had fallen off as a result of his stupid driving/attempt to evade etc. charge would more likely be that he would be either:
-Dangerous Driving causing death,
-Stunt driving causing death,
-flight from police causing death or
-vehicular manslaughter..

the fact that he was charged with straight Manslaughter indicates more than likely that he purposly unloaded her from the motorcycle (I.e. shoved her off). with or without intent to kill (I guess we will find out if it is voluntary or involuntary)....

...Trying to lighten his load?


Food for thought.
Click to expand...

i think you've touched on an interesting point...
 
2smokewilleh said:
When I look at this i ask myself: why the charge of "Manslaughter"

If she had fallen off as a result of his stupid driving/attempt to evade etc. charge would more likely be that he would be either:
-Dangerous Driving causing death,
-Stunt driving causing death,
-flight from police causing death or
-vehicular manslaughter..

the fact that he was charged with straight Manslaughter indicates more than likely that he purposly unloaded her from the motorcycle (I.e. shoved her off). with or without intent to kill (I guess we will find out if it is voluntary or involuntary)....

...Trying to lighten his load?


Food for thought.
Click to expand...

Homicide/First Degree murder would be the charge if he shoved her off. A murder charge necessitates mens rea (malicious forethought) aka intent to kill. Shoving someone off the back of motorcycle shows intent to kill.
 
Shouldn't the cars that ran the lady over be the ones that's be charged with manslaughter? I doubt she died after falling off the bike. However I am certain it was the two vehicles that struck her without stopping that actually killed her. So my question is this. Why are the vehicles that struck her on the highway not being searched for? And was the police car one of the vehicles that struck the lady? If so why did the officer not stop?
 
Pushing her off the bike may not have been intent to kill... she probably would have survived falling off the bike if she wasnt hit by other vehicles... you have to picture the intention... if she was pushed off, it wasn't for the purpose of killing her, that was just the result of the action., it was for the purpose of getting her off to attempt to escape. Therefore, there was no mens rea of killing her, and thus, not a charge of murder.
 
Freestyle72 said:
Shouldn't the cars that ran the lady over be the ones that's be charged with manslaughter? I doubt she died after falling off the bike. However I am certain it was the two vehicles that struck her without stopping that actually killed her. So my question is this. Why are the vehicles that struck her on the highway not being searched for? And was the police car one of the vehicles that struck the lady? If so why did the officer not stop?
Click to expand...

Its not reasonable to expect drivers to avoid someone or something falling from the back of a vehicle at highway speeds.

If a rock falls out of the back of a pickup and goes through your windshield who is at fault?
 
01cbr said:
Its not reasonable to expect drivers to avoid someone or something falling from the back of a vehicle at highway speeds.

If a rock falls out of the back of a pickup and goes through your windshield who is at fault?
Click to expand...

I DO however expect if a driver runs over a human being they should pull the **** over and see if that person needs medical attention.
Forum Sponsor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom