Lawyers abuzz over Michael Bryant case
The Star polled several criminal lawyers about Bryant’s possible defences. Several witnesses said the car was riding against objects on the opposite side of the street before running Mr. Sheppard over.
Jonathan Rosenthal, who has extensive experience in motor vehicle cases, said he would look for evidence his client feared for his safety.
“The only defence I see is him saying: `Listen, this guy had threatened me and I was scared he was trying to get in my car. I had to get away from him.'”
Umh, yeah… I think the analysis that the law student here did is way better than anything those practicing attorneys interviewed did.
Maybe they should hire him instead.
I cannot understand why a former AG would leave the scene of an accident to start with.
I cannot understand why he didn’t turn off the car and dial 911,then protect his passenger from this so called intoxicated man.
I cannot understand why he would run away after running over this man;why wouldn’t you call 911 immediately,especially with all the witnesses.
I cannot understand why he wasn’t charged with leaving the scene of an accident.
I cannot understand why he wasn’t tested for intoxication;you don’t have to be drunk to be intoxicated and it would clear the air for you a good move I would think;why didn’t it happen?
I can’t understand why you just wouldn’t let the law apply as it does to all citizens;no special treatment,not in this case,it smells bad.
I can’t understand why the attacks on a dead man who can’t fight back;we expect better of elevated people don’t we?
Who pays for the dead mans’ defense against the onslaught of heavy money?
Just some thoughts to ponder and I’m not alone.
Is self-defense applicable against charges of Criminal Negligence Causing Death and/or Dangerous Driving Causing Death? As much as it makes sense to me that Bryant was defending himself- something doesn’t sit right there.
Dave: In answer to your questions, I think the answer is yes. While we still don’t know any of the facts of the Bryant case, I can speak hypothetically. If a person is assaulted, they are justified in using some amount of force to defend themselves. That would include the force of pulling somebody along by stepping on a car accelerator. It will be up to a judge/jury to decide whether the amount of force used was acceptable in the circumstances.
Another legal defence is the “necessity” defence. This is a very narrow defence, which seems much less less likely to succeed (again, without knowing many of the facts.) This is because for necessity to succeed, there must be imminent danger to the accused that is inevitable, unavoidable, and there must be no reasonable opportunity for the accused to react in a way that does not break the law. Also, the harm inflicted must be less than the harm the accused was seeking to avoid. See the Supreme Court’s Decision in Perka v. The Queen (1984) and later decisions citing that one.