Apparently, after the driver was verbally abused and punched, one of the protagonists climbed on the roof of the car and the driver’s car was also vandalized during the incident, part of which was recorded on a video which was posted on You Tube prior to the court hearing.

Mr. Edmond was granted bail on the basis that his action was based on panic after being attacked and was not a premeditated assault but at trial the complex notions of the limits on the use of force in self defence will once again require careful analysis by the court. The essential question will be whether the use of force was justified under the circumstances and whether the amount used was proportionate to the assault which it was used to repel.

The notion of how a reasonable person in the circumstances of the accused would have reacted will likely be the key element in the outcome of the case. At least some comfort can be taken from the fact that no fatality occurred, unlike the George Zimmerman – Trayvon Martin case which raises similar legal issues.

So far, most of the comment has been on the applicability of the so-called “stand your ground” rule to the various factual scenarios, which might have occurred during the deadly encounter. No one seems to be interested in the obvious question of why Mr. Zimmerman was carrying a loaded handgun in the first place. Regardless of what the jury decides actually happened in the moments leading to the fatal shot being fired one has to wonder whether the confrontation even would have occurred had Zimmerman not been emboldened enough by holding his deadly weapon to disregard the advice of the 911 dispatcher and continue to follow Mr. Martin.

In Canada, as in most other so-called civilized countries, the right to carry a handgun is restricted almost exclusively to government law enforcement officers and armoured carrier personnel. Private security agents and private investigators are not permitted to carry handguns nor are private bodyguards. One can only hope the sad waste of Trayvon Martin’s life leads our neighbours to the South to reflect on their wrong minded infatuation with firearms.

The fact that recently the possibility of a “Fight of the Century” between boxers Manny Pacquiao and Floyd Mayweather has been made contingent on the athletes accepting extensive drug testing has increased public awareness of the existence of effective measures to prevent the use of illegal substances. It was also encouraging to see the reaction of UFC boss Dana White to the news of one of its stars, Alistair Overeem, failing a random test which was carried out just prior to a pre-fight news conference. Mr. White unleashed a tirade of critical comments, which included the words “dummy”, “moron” and “loser”, while making it clear the lucrative fight would be cancelled unless the result was shown to be incorrect. In these instances, more progress was made toward eliminating the problem of substance abuse than the protracted and unproductive criminal proceedings involving celebrity athletes in other sports.

This is understandable given the importance of inside information to the success of criminal investigations and the crucial need to keep the sources of such information confidential in order for them to survive in their criminal milieu.

Criminal lawyers are obliged to respect the strong privilege the courts attach to the identity of confidential informers. Thus, as an exception to the constitutional right of a criminal defendant to receive full disclosure of the prosecution’s evidence, any information even tending to identify a confidential informant is withheld from the defence. Only in the rare instance where it is shown the informer might actually have been present during the commission of the alleged offence and could therefore have evidence potentially exonerating the defendant – the so called “innocence at stake exception” – can the prosecution be obliged to reveal their identity. In these rare instances the state invariably drops the case rather than jeopardize the safety of the informer.

News of the apparent suicide of the allegedly corrupt former officer wasn’t surprising to members of the criminal justice community given the animosity his treachery undoubtedly aroused in diverse factions of the criminal justice community.