Top Politican Kills Bicyclist

[saskganesh]

That's shitty.  He gets attacked by a dangerous antisocial lunatic, and loses his job because of it.

Society is fucked up sometimes.

Yeah, and then you get people like Jacob who think it's a good thing that he loses his job.

of course, his job was with the City of Toronto, which has a pro bike agenda.

it's politics. the optics would be terrible.

How can Toronto have a pro-bike agenda when it's impassable to bikes for half the year?

  I'll find out this winter. the hardcores say its only impassible for 3 months.

[Valmy]

I had to do it:

http://james.nerdiphythesoul.com/bennyhillifier/?id=4hPB9t1qCas

I am OUTRAGED by this callous disregard for human suffering

You, sir, are worse than...well you know.

[Neil]

  I'll find out this winter. the hardcores say its only impassible for 3 months.

Never trust the hardcores.  They're the ones who get killed.

[saskganesh]

more detials

Police say Sheppard grabbed on to Bryant's car following an altercation. Witnesses say Bryant drove away with Sheppard hanging on to the side of the vehicle. The cyclist, who was on foot when he took hold of the car, then fell and suffered fatal injuries. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/09/02/bryant-resigns-invest-toronto.html

so basically, Bryant can argue he was attacked. I wonder if this squares with the hidden camera footage.

[Malthus]

Heh I come back from vacation in the wilderness and this is the top story.

It will certainly make for an interesting trial. So far, what it has made for in the news is a sort of class warfare. 

Oh, and I don't actually know Susan that well - not sure I'd recognize her by sight. Big firm and all.

[Barrister]

He may have done that.  Its not clear from the facts.  Initial reports were that this was a hit and run and then he called it in anonamously.  If he in fact did not identify himself and say exactly what occured then that was a lapse in judgment.  It may well be a lapsed that is excused given the circumstances but it does put him in a bad light.  I assume Ontario has the same strict requirement as BC to stay at the scene of something like this.

s. 252 of the Criminal Code.  So yeah, the same requirements in Ontario.

[Barrister]

Yeah, and then you get people like Jacob who think it's a good thing that he loses his job.

I didn't realize you'd joined the retard brigade.  When did that happen?

How come you immediately launch into the ad hom attack?   

[Jacob]

How come you immediately launch into the ad hom attack?   

If you read the rest of the thread, you'll see your question addressed.

[Barrister]

Put up the BB signal, we need a conviction!   

Trust me - the judges don't convict just because I'm on the case.

What is your record now?   0-962?   

Oh come on - I'm batting a solid .500.

If I were in the major leagues I'd be an All-Star.

[Savonarola]

Oh come on - I'm batting a solid .500.

If I were in the major leagues I'd be an All-Star.

You're Ted Williams of the Yukon. 

[Malthus]

He may have done that.  Its not clear from the facts.  Initial reports were that this was a hit and run and then he called it in anonamously.  If he in fact did not identify himself and say exactly what occured then that was a lapse in judgment.  It may well be a lapsed that is excused given the circumstances but it does put him in a bad light.  I assume Ontario has the same strict requirement as BC to stay at the scene of something like this.

s. 252 of the Criminal Code.  So yeah, the same requirements in Ontario.

[Looks it up]

Woah, s. 252 is pretty draconian. If you don't stop, you are presumed to be attempting to escape liability, absent evidence to the contrary. Under 252(1.3) he'd face a possible life sentence if he knew S. was injured and was reckless as to whether he was dead.

Question: could he argue that he wasn't fleeing from liability, but rather from S.? Making an anonymous call does rather preclude that possibility ...

[Barrister]

He may have done that.  Its not clear from the facts.  Initial reports were that this was a hit and run and then he called it in anonamously.  If he in fact did not identify himself and say exactly what occured then that was a lapse in judgment.  It may well be a lapsed that is excused given the circumstances but it does put him in a bad light.  I assume Ontario has the same strict requirement as BC to stay at the scene of something like this.

s. 252 of the Criminal Code.  So yeah, the same requirements in Ontario.

[Looks it up]

Woah, s. 252 is pretty draconian. If you don't stop, you are presumed to be attempting to escape liability, absent evidence to the contrary. Under 252(1.3) he'd face a possible life sentence if he knew S. was injured and was reckless as to whether he was dead.

Question: could he argue that he wasn't fleeing from liability, but rather from S.? Making an anonymous call does rather preclude that possibility ...

Of course he could argue it.  And as the specific intent is an element of the offence, the Crown must prove it BRD.  But you're right about the anonymous call...

[Malthus]

Put up the BB signal, we need a conviction!   

Trust me - the judges don't convict just because I'm on the case.

What is your record now?   0-962?   

Oh come on - I'm batting a solid .500.

If I were in the major leagues I'd be an All-Star.

Or, possibly, a coin toss. 

[Malthus]

Of course he could argue it.  And as the specific intent is an element of the offence, the Crown must prove it BRD.  But you're right about the anonymous call...

The Crown must prove it, but subsection (2) adds the presumption:

(2) In proceedings under subsection (1), evidence that an accused failed to stop his vehicle, vessel or, where possible, his aircraft, as the case may be, offer assistance where any person has been injured or appears to require assistance and give his name and address is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, proof of an intent to escape civil or criminal liability.

... which I would think would make it much easier to prove.

[The Minsky Moment]

that is sort of unclear.  Assume there is evidence to the contrary.  Does the presumption vanish or does it persist?  If it persists, how strong is it and what is needed to overcome it?  The quoted part of the statute doesn't answer those questions.