Justice for Rich White Guys

So I had a disagreement with a writer I respect on Twitter today.

We argued if you can believe it, about the Bryant story and about something I posted on Twitter regarding that case.

I had tweeted: "So the precedent we are setting here in Ontario is pro-vigilantism? So I can go tell that to some battered women right?"

And the writer replied: "your battered woman analogy is SO inappropriate."

I am normally okay with criticism, (ie; usually my critics are right) but in this case I thought maybe I was being misinterpreted.

In subsequent DM's the writer made it clear that her position was that no-one in the Bryant case was a victim. They were both aggressors and the aggression escalated resulting in the death of one man, the cyclist Darcy Sheppard.

According to the writer, women who are in abusive relationships are victims and if they attack or harm their abuser it is not vigilantism, but something different. She suggested that battered woman syndrome is acceptable as a defense in courts of law.

Now I had to do some research to make sure that this is true.

If wikipedia is to be believed women do not typically plead 'battering' or abuse successfully to mitigate or avoid responsibility for a murder or assault charge at trial with a great deal of success.

Self-defense when using a reasonable and proportionate degree of violence in response to the abuse might appear the most appropriate defense but, until recently, it almost never succeeded.

But this is irrelevant.

Because Bryant is not even going to trial, his case was dismissed.

And that is the miscarriage of justice I was talking about when I said "So the precedent we are setting here in Ontario is pro-vigilantism? So I can go tell that to some battered women right?"

If Bryant is not charged with anything, nothing, not even a misdemeanor, despite that fact that someone's life was terminated by his hand, then we live in a province that has perverted it's own legal system. Leaving that system open to misuse from any other person who wants to suggest that their only option in a critical moment was to take someone's life or cause someone pain. Instead of doing what the law suggests, such as calling the police, or attempting to escape unharmed and without harming anyone else.

If I can be blunt: The law by definition, does not want us to take justice into our own hands. If the province has dismissed Bryant's case, by extension it should dismiss every incident where a person with a weapon responded to a drunken aggressive, violent asshole by harming or killing them.

But I don't think that's going to happen. The courts aren't suddenly going to decide battered woman syndrome is admissible, because in most cases, taking the law into your own hands is illegal.

What the Bryant case demonstrates is that there are people who are above the law, and ironically it is not women who have been living with abusers, it is a lawyer himself.

This is not about victim's rights or vengeance, it's about due process of law. It is not acceptable for anyone, neither a woman who is being abused, nor someone who has plans to be the Premier of Ontario, to seek retribution in their own time especially when the outcome, as it was in this case, is a fatality.

What scares me most about the provinces acceptance of Bryant's vigilante turn, is that now he can run for office. A man who is willing to kill someone, but then unwilling to take responsibility for killing someone, wants to lead our province.

Bryant is however, willing to make up statements about a stalling vehicle, to avoid admitting his own part in starting the altercation.

The only way I might believe he wasn't a major player in this tragic story, would be if he had absolutely no alternative but to drive away with a man hanging on to the side of his car.

But here's the thing. They were downtown, it wasn't that late, both he and his wife had cellphones (no doubt). Had he stopped the car and attempted to fight with his fists, his wife could have called the police, who would have broken up the fight and saved both a man's life and Bryant's integrity.

Instead Bryant chose to use his car as a weapon. Now he has to spin his part in this cruel story so he comes out clean. To me, he looks like a sociopath even more then he did when I saw the video footage. I wonder honestly, what he thinks about at night, when he isn't worrying about his career. Does he contemplate the ethical poverty he must live in, or does he genuinely not give a shit?

He *should* take responsibility for his actions on the night in question and stand trial.

Instead he is going to use the system for all it's worth to try and convince the public that despite having a 4000 pound battering ram at his disposal and using it, he is not to blame.

He is going to be a vigilante, and we are going to let him.

And that is why I am furious.