25 May 2010

So Dalton... does this mean...

...I catch some degenerate junkie burglar breaking into my house at 2:00am... I get to blow him out of his Air-Jordans... or is killing someone in self-defense only for former Liberal cabinet ministers?halls of macadamia/I can't wait for the weeks of endless media outrage about the fix being in.

On the Sunday, April 18th edition of The National, the teaser for an upcoming story consisted entirely of these twelve words: "At the end of the day: Rahim Jaffer, Ms. Guergis - Cocaine? Hookers?"
Or is that sort of treatment reserved exclusively for knuckle-dragging Neocons?


20 comments:

robins111 said...

Wonder when Giggles Tabor will take up the flag for this travesty.

I can just see her quivering in indignation over the special deal that this Libby got... oh wait liberal, nothing to see here folks just move along

Anonymous said...

you watched "The National" ? look, pay your cable bill, soon other channels will appear on your Tv.

;)

marc in calgary

Tom said...

I believe the non-chattering class have noticed and are moving away from both the "Liberal" brand and dropping their subscriptions to newspapers and leaving the news channels for cable in droves!!
The bias has started to reap its whirlwind and we will soon watch as Canada's media types join the ranks of the unemployed (and of course it will be the result of a conspiarcy of the right....even in failure they won't look into the mirror!!!

Neo Conservative said...

*
eyewitness accounts i've read said bryant drove across the lanes of oncoming traffic, bumped up the curb... and wiped this guy off on a fixed metal mailbox.

who says there's no death penalty in canada?

*

Anonymous said...

eyewitness accounts i've read said bryant drove across the lanes of oncoming traffic, bumped up the curb... and wiped this guy off on a fixed metal mailbox.

The guy had a hold of the steering wheel! Suddenly you're supporting stoned,drunk and violent bike couriers? I know you hate the Libs but for Christ's sake, try and dump the partisanship on occasion. It'll make you look less stupid!

Jaffer's a douche, as you've noted in the past. No comparison here, nice try buddy. You've become the male "Hunter". That should worry you.

Neo Conservative said...

*
"another anonymous troll says... you're supporting stoned,drunk and violent bike couriers?"

yeah, sure... paul bernardo gets life in prison... but you wanna give the death penalty to drunks.

two words dumbass... brake... pedal.

*

Anon1152 said...

Well, I think there is a chance that you would get away with killing a thief who breaks in at 2am. John Locke would certainly be on your side. (Second Treatise, Chapter III, Section 18).

Suggestion: to improve your chances of legal success, I suggest avoiding the "air Jordan" comments. (Actually, the "air Jordan" comment is probably one of many... If you ever want to hire me as a consultant, let me know).

Also, "the death penalty" as a phrase should probably be reserved for things more like... the death penalty. That would involve a judicial system and democratic judgment of some sort. [Clarification: I'm not saying that the death penalty is good or bad, or that what happened with Bryant and Sheppard was a good thing...].

------

I think that the exact circumstances matter, and the circumstances in the Jaffer case that are being compared to the Bryant case [on bloggingtories.ca] are... not quite congruent.

For example: taking a loaded gun, aiming at someone, and shooting, shows more of an intention to kill than trying to drive away while you and your wife are on the street, in a car, and someone (who is quite angry at you) is trying to grab the wheel....

Also, and this surprised me at the time, I was struck by the fact that Bryant [and his wife] had not been drinking. [An earlier article states that"Police said Mr. Bryant had not been drinking."]

Jaffer had been drinking (which was confirmed by a test of some sort). And he had (allegedly) been caught with cocaine. And he was later quite questionably searched by the police.

But [from the article you link to:] the cyclist had been drinking, with a blood alcohol content twice the legal limit.

"[The prosecutor] said Mr. Sheppard had about twice the legal limit of alcohol in his blood according to the post-mortem toxicology test."

Also from the article you link to:

"He [the prosecutor] also provided details of other incidents between Sheppard and drivers, four of which happened the same month as the Bryant incident."


There is (now) an interesting picture from an August 2009 security released showing Mr. Sheppard (cyclist) and another driver.

*

Forgive me, but I can't help but suspect that your position on whose right and whose wrong in this case would be different if the driver was not a liberal.

Neo Conservative said...

*
"anon 1152 says... would be different if the driver was not a liberal"

you think this is about partisan politics?

read slower, 52... i'm not saying that the bike rider wasn't an asshole. he was however... unarmed. there was no proportional response here.

what i want is parity under the law.

so, as long as i get to kill anybody who i "feel" is threatening me... we're good.

but that's not how it works... is it?

*

Anon1152 said...

"You think this is about partisan politics"?
Um... yes.
Was that a trick question?

*

"he was however... unarmed."
- What counts as "arms" here? All Bryant was armed with was a car. And I bet the car was registered.

*

As for "getting to kill" whoever you "feel like" killing... I think the crown prosecutor (brought in from BC so that he had no connection to Bryant (I hope) decided that the "feeling" wasn't there.

I'm pretty sure he wishes it didn't happen. It certainly doesn't help his future political prospects. He's one of those soft on crime liberals, remember? Not going to get very far with the vigilante vote...

Neo Conservative said...

*
"anon1152 protests... All Bryant was armed with was a car."

which, curiously enough, kill way more people in canada than any sort of firearm i know... or, more to the point... their drivers do.

michael bryant drove his car across two lanes of traffic and up a curb... and wiped a human being off against a solid metal object. and yes... i call that a "marked departure" from reasonably prudent driving standards.

and even though the guy died, strangely, bryant wasn't tested for impairment.

and now there is no trial.

is that really how you think it would have worked for joe lunchbucket or, say... mike harris?

michael bryant's only defense here has to be that he "felt"... despite the lack of a weapon... his life was in danger.

do i... or anyone else, for that matter... get to make the same subjective decision?

more to the point... do the cops & lawyers just blithely go along with that decision?

yes or no?

one last point... the dead guy was also a poster child for the lunatic left... (aboriginal, probably undiagnosed fetal alcohol syndrome, seized by child welfare and placed with his brother David in a staggering 30 foster homes before being adopted)... but for this one time... he is now being almost uniformly vilified by residents of political planet pinko despite his, er... multiple handicaps.

funny how that works, huh? so if it's okay for one person to kill a drunk, mentally-ill person... shouldn't that apply right across the board?

can i kill anyone i feel is threatening me... and just walk away from it?

seems someone is being schizophrenically partisan, alright. i guess it's true... a liberal is just a conservative... who hasn't been mugged yet.

over to you, pal.

*

Anon1152 said...

1 . "[A] liberal is just a conservative... who hasn't been mugged yet."

Perhaps he has a future in the Conservative Party?

2. "[So] if it's okay for one person to kill a drunk, mentally-ill person... shouldn't that apply right across the board?"

It's not "ok". Who has suggested that it is, except perhaps you? The question is whether or not he was criminally responsible. That's why no one is declared "innocent" in court. At most, they are found "not guilty". To be innocent is to be harmless; to have done no harm. The antonym, "nocent", was once used in English. Of course, I haven't seen it used since... the 1600s. But I digress.

3.
As for your comment that he is being "almost uniformly vilified"... I haven't seen that (though I have only read a few articles in the Globe and Mail and possibly the National Post). It seems like there has been plenty of vilification on all sides, insofar as it became a battle between pro/anti drivers/cyclists. I find it interesting that just before your "vilification" comment, you quote from a Blatchford piece. But you quote somewhat selectively. Here is the full paragraph:

He [the prosecutor] went out of his way to speak kindly about the dead man, noting that he brought up Mr. Sheppard’s unlucky background (aboriginal, probably undiagnosed fetal alcohol syndrome, seized by child welfare and placed with his brother David in a staggering 30 foster homes before being adopted) and highlights of his criminal record “not to demonize Mr. Sheppard or for anyone to suggest he somehow deserved his fate,” but rather because in a case where self-defence was claimed, these were relevant facts."

Another interesting paragraph: [Though Blatchford does ultimately believe that he received preferential treatment]: Here’s what usually happens: the Crown gets the case if not the night before at best a couple of weeks before, has a quick read, and it goes to a preliminary hearing. There, the evidence is called, although not nearly as thoroughly as it was here, and the Crown might conclude, correctly, that it’s a weak case, but odds are he’d let it go to trial. At trial, the average guy probably would be acquitted.

At trial, the average guy probably would be acquitted.

4.
Oh, BTW, do we know that "bryant wasn't tested for impairment"? When the story broke it was reported that the police said that he had not been drinking. I assume they do more than take his word for it. Especially if he's a politician.

Years ago, Rene Levesque drove over a homeless man sleeping on the road. Levesque was not tested for impairment, though he had been drinking earlier that day. The dead guy, however, was tested, and found to have been intoxicated. I must admit, it sounds like he was not at fault... but... giving the blood alcohol to the dead guy and not the driver seems a little weird.

Neo Conservative said...

*
"anon1152 crows... At trial, the average guy probably would be acquitted."

well, heck... how can i take issue with that logic, huh? no reason to have trials at all, right?

yes, indeedy... let's just average things out.

but hang on a second... isn't even willie pickton getting an appeal? why would we bother with a trial process to test that case? i mean... he's probably guilty, right?

"52 goes on to assert... Oh, BTW, do we know that "bryant wasn't tested for impairment"? I assume they do more than take his word for it. Especially if he's a politician."

assume away... it's what you guys do best...

"There was no reason to ask Bryant for a breathalyzer, says Sgt. Tim Burrows, and according to a Toronto Star story, there was no alcohol at their dinner."

hmmm... how many other drivers involved in a fatal accident get a pass on the breathalyzer?

read the whole article 52... and tell me how much you admire mr bryant's decision to hire "press relations firm to the rich & famous"... navigator.. to expertly (and horrendously expensively) spin this little narrative.

still think bryant didn't get special treatment? but that's not even the "killer" question, is it.

it's the legal precedent here that should make folks sit up and think.

here, try this one on... can i now just go out & kill any drunk, arguably mentally ill (yet unarmed) person i encounter... if i "feel" sufficiently threatened?

this decision says... go right ahead.

and hey... i'm not shedding tears here for darcy sheppard. he died as he lived... stupidly. the question is... are we declaring open season on people we think of as unapologetic assholes?

but, what the hell, 52... as long as everybody gets the same legal latitude michael bryant got... i guess we're good here.

*

Anonymous said...

The CBC and much of the media must be torn right now.. what to do? I mean they want to go to the defense of the hard luck kid that was murdered in cold blood in public but they can't attack the liberal party nor can they attack the interests that own the media in this country. What to do? (real conservative)

Anon1152 said...

"anon1152 crows... At trial, the average guy probably would be acquitted."


Um... I was explicitly quoting Christie Blatchford. And I don't recall hearing her crow. And I acknowledged that her initial point in her piece was that he did get special treatment. (And the quote suggested that he didn't. And I didn't want to misrepresent her).

*

"assume away... it's what you guys do best..."

What exactly do you mean by "you guys"? [I really want to say: "what do you mean, "you people"?]. I assumed that police wouldn't take someone's word for it that they had not been drinking. Especially if it was a politician. And especially if it was a soft on crime liberal politician. I didn't assume that he wasn't tested for impairment. I mentioned that I had read an article when the story broke that said that Bryant had not been drinking, according to the police. If I may quote myself: " [An earlier article states that"Police said Mr. Bryant had not been drinking."]"

I think you're assuming more than I am.

By the way, I expected the link you provided in your comment/quote to relate more to Bryant and Breathalyzers. You said: "There was no reason to ask Bryant for a breathalyzer, says Sgt. Tim Burrows..." would apply to the Bryant/breathalizer issue. But I don't see how it does."

Here is what it links to: http://hallsofmacadamia.blogspot.com/2010/05/bright-lights-big-city_26.html

And THAT link contains links to this: http://www.torontosun.com/news/torontoandgta/2010/05/26/14104516.html

and this: http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20100526/shooting-Toronto-hospital-100526/20100526/?hub=TorontoNewHome

So I don't think you have answered my question as to whether or not Bryant was "given a pass on a Breathalyzer".

As for your question as to whether or not I know of anyone who was given a pass... I mentioned Rene Levesque as a possible candidate in my last comment.

Oh, and by "given a pass" I assume you mean here whether or not he was checked for impairment, not whether or not he got a pass on a breathalyzer technically. Many people who blow into breathalyzers do "pass".

*

Anon1152 said...

"[A]nd tell me how much you admire mr Bryant's decision to hire "press relations firm to the rich & famous"... navigator.. to expertly (and horrendously expensively) spin this little narrative."

I don't admire it. Nor do I disapprove a great deal. I assume he spent his own money on the public relations firm. I guess I'm a conservative when it comes to how people spend their own money... (If he were still an MP I would of course suspect that he used his "expense account". And even now, I wouldn't be shocked to hear it was publicly expensed somehow. But until I see evidence to the contrary, I'm assuming that the payments to the PR firm were legitimate).

I don't think too much about the decision. Most people wouldn't hire a public relations firm in his case, that's true. But most people are not "in the public eye". The average driver who runs someone over isn't a public figure... if it were me or you, I assume we wouldn't want to hire a public relations firm since the public wouldn't know/care who we are. Well, me at any rate. I can't speak for you...

For Bryant, the incident was public to start with. I'm sure he'd have preferred that it wasn't. Not everyone has the benefit of censoring pages and pages of documents in the name of "national security."

*

"[S]till think bryant didn't get special treatment? but that's not even the "killer" question, is it."

I realize that my Blatchford quote suggested that I thought that he didn't get special treatment. But I was quoting from the article you quoted from, trying to show that you had quoted...selectively. And before I quoted I acknowledged that she thought that he DID get special treatment.

As for whether or not was a "killer" in this situation... I don't think you asked that question before... But I have to say: yes, insofar as his actions caused the death of someone else, you could say that he was the "killer." Though as I said, the question for me (and I think for the courts) is whether or not he was criminally responsible.

To be quite frank, I think that if the case were treated like any other, it would have been more unfair. Equal treatment for people who are not equal to begin with is not exactly "equal" in a meaningful sense of the term. It's long been recognized as an injustice. I could find an Aristotle quote if you wanted me to...

If, for example, the crown prosecutor was from Ontario, pursuing a case against the attorney general of Ontario... that would be more suspicious than bringing in someone from BC, someone whose job/wellbeing was not ever tied so closely to the accused... wouldn't it?

I'm not saying that the rich/famous don't have a better chance of winning in court than the poor/obscure. I think that's relatively obvious. And I think it's unfair. And you seem to think so too. Does this mean that you'd join me in supporting a more robust legal aid system?

Neo Conservative said...

*
"anon1152 asks... you'd join me in supporting a more robust legal aid system?"

hmmm, more government bureaucracy, there's a thought... wait a minute... the government has trouble delivering the mail... and that's got your name & address on it . i'm thinking there must be a better answer.

funny... you forgot to tell me how you felt about your somewhat erroneous assumption that, of course... bryant was given a breathalyzer. got some aristotle that covers that?

the stark reality is, this isn't, in any way, shape or form about bryant's feelings. what it should actually be about is... one people, one law.

and hey, you don't think it's pretty weird, how suddenly & mysteriously... this guy's aboriginal status & mental deficits mean sfa to the leftbots & the msm? i'm thinkin', it was mike harris drivin' that car, our ear's would still be ringin' from all the screaming.

just one last thing, 52...

how about the next time anybody smacks down some belligerent, spaced out street-tweaker (and by smacked down, i mean kill)... you guys keep all the usual compassionate, intellectual pissin' & moanin' to yourselves?

'cos if you're not gonna speak up for darcy sheppard... just because michael bryant flaunts his expensive suits & government connections for all they're worth... you've lost the right to speak up for the rest of the so-called socially disenfranchised as well.

michael bryant and his highly-paid entourage have just shown us the way this deal really works.

*

Anon1152 said...

Given that most of what I want to say now would involve quoting previous comments in this thread... I'll let you have the last word.

Neo Conservative said...

*
"anon1152 says... I'll let you have the last word."

well, my learned friend... that's really a shame... 'cos that last question about the coppers giving bryant a pass on the breathalyzer... despite the fatality... that wasn't a rhetorical flourish.

*

Anon1152 said...

I just can't help myself. But you'll see in a second what I meant when I said I would only be repeating myself.

You write: "well, my learned friend... that's really a shame... 'cos that last question about the coppers giving bryant a pass on the breathalyzer... despite the fatality... that wasn't a rhetorical flourish."

I did not "assume" he was not breathalyzed. I noted in my first comment that it was reported at the time that Bryant had not been drinking, and I provided a link to the article saying so:
Also, and this surprised me at the time, I was struck by the fact that Bryant [and his wife] had not been drinking. [An earlier article states that"Police said Mr. Bryant had not been drinking."]

I would have said more about Bryant and the breathalyzer, but your earlier comment about it included links to previous posts of yours which didn't mention either Bryant or the Breathalyzer... and those posts included links but those links also seemed unrelated to this particular issue"

By the way, I expected the link you provided in your comment/quote to relate more to Bryant and Breathalyzers. You said: "There was no reason to ask Bryant for a breathalyzer, says Sgt. Tim Burrows..." would apply to the Bryant/breathalizer issue. But I don't see how it does."

Here is what it links to: http://hallsofmacadamia.blogspot.com/2010/05/bright-lights-big-city_26.html

And THAT link contains links to this: http://www.torontosun.com/news/torontoandgta/2010/05/26/14104516.html

and this: http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20100526/shooting-Toronto-hospital-100526/20100526/?hub=TorontoNewHome


*

As I said, I would only be repeating myself if I said more. And I could say more. Here I've only repeated myself on the Bryant/alcohol issue.


Oh. And what exactly is your issue with Canada Post? Out of all of the services I use, public or private, the mail seems to be one of the best. Carrying a birthday card, say, from St. John's to Vancouver, or from Sarnia to Iqaluit, or wherever, for 50 cents, seems fairly cheap. And yet all of the mailmen I've met seem to be fairly satisfied workers. ("Going Postal" in Canada doesn't seem that threatening).

Neo Conservative said...

*
"anon1152 protests... it was reported at the time that Bryant had not been drinking"

hmmm, reported... by who exactly... the multi-million dollar press relations agency bryant hired before the blood on the street had even dried?

again... are you saying you're okay with the cops not breath-testing a driver in a traffic fatality... because he tells them he hadn't been drinking?

this doesn't raise any flags? i think rahim jaffer had to bend over and show the opp the rosy red.

you're not one of those guys who believes dick cheney & the mossad brought down the twin towers, are you?

*