Bringing the administration of justice into disrepute...
 

Care to elaborate on what you mean by the thread title?

-G

I like how the judge stuck in the jab of the cyclist 'not being entirely innocent" because he had a heated exchange with the cabbie. This apparently explains why said cabbie gets himself out of the confrontation and promptly used his car as weapon to make an attempt on the cyclist's life and very nearly succeeding in murdering him. This warranted a conviction of attempted murder and serious jail time in Kingston.

There is no justice.

There is plenty of justice, it just doesn't fit into how WE define them. I believe its application is proportional to the size of your bank account ;)

"McMahon acquitted Ahmed of aggravated assault and assault with a weapon because he was left with reasonable doubt that Ahmed intended to deliberately hit Kastelewicz rather than just his bike."

Only those who are actually familiar with the evidence can have a valid opinion as to whether the judge was correct.

Whatz the difference between a valid opinion on an Internet discussion list/blog, and an invalid opinion on same?

That most can't tell the difference is one reason democracy is a bad idea...

Two wrongs in this case:

1. The cyclist should have just pedaled on instead of stopping to argue with the guy.
2. The driver should have driven away instead of backing into the bicycle and crushing the guy's leg.

Road rage is so stupid. This case proves that it's just not that important in the long run. One guy is in jail for two years (and lucky to get such a short sentence), and another guy is missing his leg.

I agree. Bad outcome way before the trial. Avoiding escalation should be a cyclist's priority. It is one of my priorities and I really have to work at it.

Normally I'd be inclined to doubt this, but the cyclist had kicked and dented the cab. That makes the cabbie trying to damage the bike a much more believeable situation.

Obviously the judge agreed with you.

Maybe there's someone out there familiar enough with criminal law to explain this, but to me that's a distinction without a difference if he was on the bike at the time.

Murder, Manslaughter and Infanticide
Marginal note:Murder
229. Culpable homicide is murder

(a) where the person who causes the death of a human being

(i) means to cause his death, or

(ii) means to cause him bodily harm that he knows is likely to cause his death, and is reckless whether death ensues or not;

(b) where a person, meaning to cause death to a human being or meaning to cause him bodily harm that he knows is likely to cause his death, and being reckless whether death ensues or not, by accident or mistake causes death to another human being, notwithstanding that he does not mean to cause death or bodily harm to that human being; or

(c) where a person, for an unlawful object, does anything that he knows or ought to know is likely to cause death, and thereby causes death to a human being, notwithstanding that he desires to effect his object without causing death or bodily harm to any human being.

I'd say that sub section (c) would apply in this instance

Its always amusing when some anonymous person on the internet claims to know more about both the law and the facts of the case then the judge who presided over the trial...

How would a murder law apply? No one was killed.

Don't expect rational thought on this forum!

Since we are free from the burden of a full (or even partial) body of evidence, we are allowed to steer the event and consequence to any alternate reality we choose.

-G