| Michael Bryant and Darcy Sheppard
Posted: 9/4/2009 9:55:56 PM | | lol using my logic ? first off I wouldnt have sped off with some dood hanging onto my car . Secondly Bryant most likely started the whole thing by not looking out for the biker ( who was already in a bad mood ) being a * biker * myself I always look and i notice when im riding how much drivers dont look . And Speed up and brake fast would have ended the whole thing ? You telling me they also had no cell phone to call the cops ? its a clear cut case of homicide and rightfully earned . Bryant had the power to control his actions , his actions cost a life and for that...he himself pays . | |
|
| Michael Bryant and Darcy Sheppard
Posted: 9/5/2009 8:26:15 AM | Regardless of who was at fault, this will play itself out in the Courts. From a public confidence point of view, it's imperative that Bryant be tried. I sincerely doubt that there will be any plea to a lesser or included, and that he will seek a clean acquittal via trial and most likely, by jury. The Province will ensure that justice will be done. He will get no favours or grace and if anything, regardless of guilt or innocence, he will pay for years to come.
From the armchair quarterback position, I can see how tempers probably got the best of both. Unfortunately, in the world of rock, paper, scissors, car wins over bike/pedestrian. Hindsight is an amazing thing and it's easy to pick over when you're not in the moment of it all: Regrets all around. | |
|
| Michael Bryant and Darcy Sheppard
Posted: 9/5/2009 10:01:14 AM | | There will definately be more facts revealed and the courts will have to render a verdict. The whole thing is tragic but having never been in that situation, I can't tell you what I would be thinking, doing. I can definately picture myself trying to get away. My guess is I wouldn't be looking carefully at where I was going, probably trying to get the other guy off my car. Maybe that's why Bryant steered across the street. I haven't heard his wife's testimony, have you? The autopsy will reveal whether the guy was intocicated. I thought I had read that his girlfriend had said he was drunk and had hoped the police would take him home, not send him on his way by bike. Perhaps that is one action we can see as a point where the whole thing could have been avoided. This certainly reminds me of Ted Kennedy's incident. | |
|
| Michael Bryant and Darcy Sheppard
Posted: 9/5/2009 1:20:45 PM | | its road rage ... what do you think started it? the ongoing battle of sharing the road between cyclists and motorists. | |
|
| |
| Michael Bryant and Darcy Sheppard
Posted: 9/7/2009 7:17:01 AM |
The fact that a few charges are against the driver kind of suggests there is a wrongdoing on his part. Public opinion is always swayed by whether or not charges have been laid against a person; I still believe in innocent until proven guilty. Blindly following what could be considered the status quo would make a mockery of our justice system and ensure that there was no such thing as a fair trial.
Police determined he was not drunk and let him go on his way. My understanding is that the police did not determine him to be a threat to himself or others in that particular situation and refused to play taxi service. Additionally, no test was administered to determine his blood alcohol level, but there are first hand witnesses that reported him being quite inebriated.
The more I read the more I've concluded that the driver possibly disregarded the presence of the cyclist on the street and that's what set the cyclist off. Again, my understanding is that there was a ‘near miss’ immediately prior to this event and from that, the cyclist attacked the driver.
He purposely drove the cyclist into objects - that is a sign of "intent" to hurt someone - that is not a defensive act. I’ve read and heard accounts which also tell a different story – that Bryant was attempting to avoid traffic and that it was the cyclist holding onto the steering wheel that caused the direction of the vehicle to go against the tree and mailbox.
There is no reason for not slamming the brakes - that would have solved everything. Hindsight being 20/20… it is still speculation. Bryant might have been so disoriented with being attacked while in his vehicle that he didn’t immediately do this, he sped up instead. A perfectly logical act if one feels that this action would have the cyclist let go of the vehicle… but he didn’t let go… I would like to know why he continued to hold on when Bryant was extracting himself in the most logical way possible from the situation.
Apparently, there is a possibility Bryant provoked the entire situation. Sheppard wasn’t an innocent by-stander in this situation… he took deliberate actions to exacerbate the situation resulting in his death. | |
|
| Michael Bryant and Darcy Sheppard
Posted: 9/7/2009 7:50:31 AM |
I still believe in innocent until proven guilty. Blindly following what could be considered the status quo would make a mockery of our justice
I totally disagree with your premise. In this case, it appears as though the driver knew exactly what he was doing. Just as you posted:
that Bryant was attempting to avoid traffic and that it was the cyclist holding onto the steering wheel that caused the direction of the vehicle to go against the tree and mailbox.
^^^This version does not add up. If the cyclist was beating his lock against the car (message#11) and he was also holding onto the steering wheel (not a stationary object) that was obviously rotating back and forth, there is no way he could have kept balance and remain hanging on the side of the vehicle.... especially if he was drunk.
My understanding is that the police did not determine him to be a threat to himself or others in that particular situation and refused to play taxi service. Additionally, no test was administered to determine his blood alcohol level, but there are first hand witnesses that reported him being quite inebriated
You did claim to prefer a person is innocent until proven guilty. Yet, you are not doing this for the cyclist.
Bryant might have been so disoriented with being attacked while in his vehicle that he didn’t immediately do this, he sped up instead. A perfectly logical act
A perfectly logical way of thinking after the first moment of shock has subsided, is to think, "I might kill this guy hanging from my car."
In my opinion, the most incriminating evidence is that the cyclist had struck more than one object. I'm of the opinion, the cyclist was afraid to let go of the car. The cyclist was more fearful of letting go as opposed to seeking revenge.
Thinking of it from the cyclists position, there seems to be more eveidence showing the cyclist was in more fear for his life than the driver was. I'm also guessing the cyclist was reaching in to turn the key - it's speculation but it seems more reasonable than to think he was trying to steer the car. | |
|
| Michael Bryant and Darcy Sheppard
Posted: 9/7/2009 8:01:39 AM |
You did claim to prefer a person is innocent until proven guilty. Yet, you are not doing this for the cyclist. You're absolutely correct... I'm guilty as charged.
When I hear of someone being drunk and doing something stupid to ruin the life of a reasonable and responsible citizen, I do tend to go on a bit of a witch hunt. I'm also extremely stubborn so it will take some incredibly influential evidence to change my mind.
Thinking of it from the cyclists position, there seems to be more eveidence showing the cyclist was in more fear for his life than the driver was. Then he should have let go of the vehicle... better yet, not grabbed onto it in the first place. | |
|
| Michael Bryant and Darcy Sheppard
Posted: 9/7/2009 8:04:30 AM | From a logical point of view... and to quote Sesame Street - one of these things just doesn't belong... the cyclist was hanging off the car - not draped over the hood which is what one would expect. Last I checked, pedestrians weren't accessories. He could have let go. I think he was fighting for the wheel and the natural conclusion is he was pulling not pushing the wheel away from him.
I'm also guessing the cyclist was reaching in to turn the key
I don't think so. Again, ask who was where they were supposed to be? Driver in car. Pedestrian/cyclist hanging off car. I'm not rooting for one or the other - the Courts will take care of speculation, but having experience and common sense, one of these things just doesn't belong. | |
|
| Michael Bryant and Darcy Sheppard
Posted: 9/7/2009 11:06:20 AM |
From a logical point of view... and to quote Sesame Street - one of these things just doesn't belong... the cyclist was hanging off the car
I agree that the cyclist was not rational in the sense that he was dumb enough to leap/lunge at a car - that was stupid. But, I think the main concern is the end result. Someone died and it's not quite certain if self defence is a reasonable defense.
He could have let go
I was in such a position before. I was hanging from the side of a car (someone pulled a stupid stunt on me) and had the option to hold on or let go. In my case, the driver sped away so quickly I knew if I let go I would be seriously hurt - feet under the wheels possibly. I held on and waited 'till the driver stopped (I was reaching for the keys). I suffered a lot of scrapes and bruises from the incident and I think I'm lucky that's all that happened.
It will be interesting to get all of the facts. But, in the meantime, I'd rather keep this thread rolling because the other topics are kinda lame. Besides, I like reading posts from candid1 - she's attractive and intelligent. | |
|
| Michael Bryant and Darcy Sheppard
Posted: 9/7/2009 11:26:18 AM | Until the police,gather all the conclusive evidence on this matter, it will be pointing fingers as to whom is guilty.
The major question is why, Didn't he just stop the car!!!!!!
if it was a case of an attempt to steal the car, there's insurance.
G | |
|
| Michael Bryant and Darcy Sheppard
Posted: 9/7/2009 5:45:36 PM |
The major question is why, Didn't he just stop the car!!!!!!
if it was a case of an attempt to steal the car, there's insurance. Only if the chef at the greek restaurant put tzatziki sauce instead of mayo on that souvlaki , the customer wouldn't be upset? meanwhile back at the ranch, you think he should of stopped the car when a deranged possibly a intoxicated man is lunging at you?
Unless he's a expert in combat art, which he isnt, why should he stop and possible face a beating? people now a days are friggen nuts to butts. | |
|
| Michael Bryant and Darcy Sheppard
Posted: 9/8/2009 5:27:29 AM |
you think he should of stopped the car when a deranged possibly a intoxicated man is lunging at you?
Unless he's a expert in combat art, which he isn’t, why should he stop and possible face a beating?
Have to agree with mahogany-rush on that. If he was in the vehicle with his wife in a convertible (cloth roof) and someone was hammering away with a bike lock (metal object with fairly long reach) I’m sure a fight or flight reflex would have kicked in and in this case he would have realized if he stopped to fight he would definitely have gotten charged by the police. I truly doubt Bryant would have wanted to hurt the cyclist as he had too much to lose (reputation, work , etc).
the Courts will take care of speculation
I totally agree with candid that it's up to the courts and the police to piece this puzzle together and see what really happened.
We can speculate all we want but unless we have interviewed the witnesses and watched available video's nothing we say will change what happened or who is guilty.
It’s always sad to see someone lose their life but i don't think we should automatically charge someone just because someone died. Self defense IS a justifiable thing. No one in this world wants to get hurt. as a society we have to be careful about giving away our right to feel safe and protected at all times. if someone dies while trying to hurt you it should not automatically mean you should get a jail term. I truly believe this might just end up being in the darwin awards if the facts come out as i fear they might.
Once again there is more to the story and we really can't draw conclusion based on such little information we have available.
And for the people saying Bryant will get off scott free because he knows people, they have to realize that his trial will be so closely followed that everything will have to be done by the book so that there is no favoritism. The court system does have to maintain their professionalism. I truly do believe the courts in Canada are very fair and impartial (vs the rest of the world). Our media does a good job of following up on the stories to get out all the details so it's harder to hide stuff.
I’m sure no matter what the outcome a lot of people have already decided if Bryant is guilty or innocent lol so something like the facts might not change their point of view.
end rambling: back to trolling for fun interesting stuff on internet lol | |
|
| Michael Bryant and Darcy Sheppard
Posted: 9/8/2009 7:30:46 AM | Well, the top was down and the guy was by at least some accounts (police included) hanging on to the steering wheel of the car with one hand while swinging a heavy bicycle lock like a weapon with another. Had it been anyone here, would you seriously have considered stopping your car to politely ask the bike rider to please let go of the car and stop swinging that big heavy lock at you?
I know I wouldn't... I'd be actively working to dislodge the lunatic from my car and away from me and anyone with me.
Also, the time from bike rider hanging onto car from bike rider dropping away from car wasn't a wild lengthy marathon run throughout the city streets. The events umtimately took place within a scant handful of seconds over a scant handful of metres. For all we know, the path that the car briefly took into the trees and mail box on the other side of the road was determined more by the rider wrestling with the steering wheel than by Bryant himself.
Unfortunately, Bryant is a politician and to some, belongs among the scum of the earth just as much as others would see bicycle couriers as belonging among the scum of the earth. How many of the rants against Bryant here would instead switch to unqualified support had the incident instead involved an unknown family guy out on Bloor in the family wagon with his wife and kids? | |
|
| Michael Bryant and Darcy Sheppard
Posted: 9/8/2009 8:50:25 AM |
And for the people saying Bryant will get off scott free because he knows people, they have to realize that his trial will be so closely followed that everything will have to be done by the book so that there is no favoritism. Not a chance he will get off scott free, if anything he will be tried just to make a example of, being in the public eye nowadays doesn't afford you the same luxury as mr or mrs average joe, the only thing is he can afford a better lawyer.
Just ask Micheal Vick if his celebrity status saved his ass, not a chance.... its because of who he is, is the reason became a guest of the government, If that was Joe Average who did those things to those dogs, It wouldn't of made out of the Local papers, same thing here, if it was Joe Average in the car with the whack job cyclist chasing him, it would be on page 15 of the local paper . | |
|
| Michael Bryant and Darcy Sheppard
Posted: 9/8/2009 11:14:18 AM | | I wonder how those who think the 'victim' in this was the driver would feel if he'd managed to run over a little kid in the process of 'dislodging the cyclist' from his car? I suppose I can acknowlege that under the circumstances he may not have been thinking clearly, but his reaction was violent - resulting in someone's death. | |
|
| Michael Bryant and Darcy Sheppard
Posted: 9/8/2009 12:02:58 PM | I suppose I can acknowlege that under the circumstances he may not have been thinking clearly, but his reaction was violent - resulting in someone's death.
^^ That's kinda what I've been trying to say. As a reaction, it's usually sudden and within a wink or two of the eyes, a person's thought process does return. As I stated, a death resulted from this. According to the accounts given, this wasn't a 10 second ordeal. There was more than enough time to put things into perspective.
Being assaulted (if he was not the perpetrator) by a guy on a bicycle does not infer one's life was at risk - that's an exageration. Yet, the driver put many people's lives at risk and did actually kill someone.
It was a coward's response. | |
|
| Michael Bryant and Darcy Sheppard
Posted: 9/8/2009 12:47:33 PM | There was more than enough time to put things into perspective.
That's easy for you to say. No matter who was at fault it was a terrifying minute, second, moment that had tragic consequences. Hard to call without a drunk hanging off, beating your car and possibly your person as you try to protect your head and wife. And the trouble with self-defence is it's not what was happening, but what was believed to be possible and what was reasonable force given the circumstances. How do you know Bryant wasn't trying to escape Sheppard?
How do you know Sheppard wasn't the aggressor? Like I said, the Court will sort it out, but other than the death, most victims don't end up like this - they are clear of the car or under it. Sometimes in life there are victims. Sometimes there are volunteers. | |
|
| Michael Bryant and Darcy Sheppard
Posted: 9/8/2009 1:40:00 PM |
I wonder how those who think the 'victim' in this was the driver would feel if he'd managed to run over a little kid in the process of 'dislodging the cyclist' from his car? I suppose I can acknowlege that under the circumstances he may not have been thinking clearly, but his reaction was violent - resulting in someone's death. but he didnt run over a little kid, if he did we would be talking about the little kid that was killed.
I dont buy the argument that his reaction was violent,It was a unfortunate accident which resulted in someone death, the fact he was a approached by someone a bit deranged and he feared for his safety, ever seen Mr.Bryant in person, he's not a big man, and kind of soft, im sure that guy couldn't fight his way out of a wet paper bag, now im sure if the guy in the car was a Mixed martial artist and he got of his car and beat the living sh1t of the Mr Sheppard, what would you say?
Being assaulted (if he was not the perpetrator) by a guy on a bicycle does not infer one's life was at risk - that's an exageration. Yet, the driver put many people's lives at risk and did actually kill someone.It was a coward's response-MY I Im sorry but thats a load of crap, you weren't in Mr. Bryant's shoes, its easy to be a monday morning quarterback and say he's a coward for taking off.
I know if I was in that situation I was with my wife/girlfriend/s.o. what ever, would I of stopped, its easy for me to say yes i would of, because 1) i have a black belt, so defending my self isnt a big issue, but to a guy like Mr.Bryant who only fight he's been in, is in the political arena, you cant pretend to know whats going on in his head or how he feared for his safety, imaging driving and some jack off lunges at you from his bike? of course you're going to think is this guy a complete whack job or does he have a piece on him?
| |
|
| Michael Bryant and Darcy Sheppard
Posted: 9/8/2009 3:29:41 PM | Witness accounts of the last moments of the fatal fight differ widely with some reporting the cyclist was reaching into the car and trying to grab the wheel or even trying to grab Bryant. Police said they are continuing to appeal for witnesses to come forward and are reviewing surveillance video from the area.
So it's possible that Bryant wasn't fully in control of the car, and may actually have been fighting the cyclist for control of the steering wheel. So, who then actually steered the car over to the other side of the street and alongside the trees and postal box? Even if solely in control of the wheel, would Bryant have reasonably been able to maintain full control of steering and gas inputs with a cyclist trying to grab him as he sat vulnerable in his convertible with the convertible top and windows down?
The cyclist approached Bryant and grabbed on to the car, police said.
Bryant then drove west on Bloor St. W. with the cyclist, now off his bike, attached to the car until he fell off around 100 metres away on the south side of the street off the eastbound lanes, police said.
100 metres at 50 km per hour would be all of 7 seconds of travel time, and an eternity if you were sitting in a car being attacked by a lunatic armed with a bicycle lock. How many here would be able to assess and react "more appropriately" under the same sort of circumstances?
Under the same circumstances, I would have done the same as Bryant. You can't reasonably expect anyone to sit still and wait while being attacked by an angry lunatic. The overriding concerns would be the safety of yourself and the people in your car. The safety of the attacking lunatic would be a distant consideration. | |
|
| Michael Bryant and Darcy Sheppard
Posted: 9/8/2009 5:09:10 PM |
100 metres at 50 km per hour would be all of 7 seconds of travel time
He was on Bloor street and drove the length of a football field with a human hanging on the side of his car. If anyone is suggesting Bryant wasn't in control of the car and Bryant was hysterical, I guess it's also safe to assume the cyclist did a great job steerng for 100 metres down a main street in Toronto.
I stated before the cyclist did an irrational and foolish act. However, it seems as though many of you are of the opinion Bryant did nothing to provoke this cyclists anger. It's not as if it were a random choice he attacked Bryant's car.
I am of the opinion that Bryant isn't as innocent and shaken as some believe - especially since there seems to be varying eye witness accounts.
The safety of the attacking lunatic would be a distant consideration
You're suggesting there was one lunatic - and no perpetrator. Something/someone pissed off the cyclist.
So, who then actually steered the car over to the other side of the street and alongside the trees and postal box?
That seems to be a lof of directional change and impacts for someone hanging on the vehicle and attempting to steer it while supporting his own weight and while beating the car with another device. He'd have to be the incredible hulk and a riverdance professional to manage all that with one arm on a moving steering wheel. | |
|
| Michael Bryant and Darcy Sheppard
Posted: 9/8/2009 5:26:13 PM | Far as im concerned the Cyclist used bad judgment , who would be stupid enough to chase a motor car on a bike, and lunge at the driver, but you have to understand Mr.Bryant and Im not defending him , but if youre a person who hasnt had to confront someone in a physical manner you will react differently, this is a big city, you hear people shooting people for the sake of shooting them.
Some people have no regards for human life, Mr Bryant didnt know what this cyclist was going to do, so hes supposed to stop and find out and the cyclist starts pounding the crap out of him and he cant defend himself what then? | |
|
| Michael Bryant and Darcy Sheppard
Posted: 9/8/2009 5:45:25 PM | You're suggesting there was one lunatic - and no perpetrator. Something/someone pissed off the cyclist.
That may well have happened, but so what?
By some accounts it was the cyclist who initially clipped the car by weaving back and forth through slow moving car traffic on Bloor, and not the car who clipped the cyclist.
Either way, it was a minor incident of the type that happens regularly in the downtown core, and not one that should have led to road rage on either party's part. But we now know that the cyclist was already on a bit of a rampage that night having been involved in an earlier dispute that required the presence of police and being under the influence of alcohol.
Regardless of what started the incident and who might have been at initial fault, it was the cyclist's extreme reaction that escalated matters to the point of tragedy. Bryant's response to that reaction may not have been the best response, but it is still fully understandable given the circumstances that are coming to light. | |
|
| Michael Bryant and Darcy Sheppard
Posted: 9/8/2009 5:57:42 PM |
Mr Bryant didnt know what this cyclist was going to do, so hes supposed to stop and find out and the cyclist starts pounding the crap out of him and he cant defend himself what then?
Well, that's the thing. Was there a confrontation (verbal or otherwise) on the street prior to the cyclist approaching the vehicle? According to one of the articles I read there was some sort of altercation. I agree the cyclist isn't smart. But, I have a difficult time with the fact that the car left the road, travelled the length of a football field down Bloor Street and nothing happened except for the cyclist getting killed.
The cyclist was obviously infuriated and not thiking straight. But, at some point that cyclist had to become fearful of the danger he was in and was more focussed on his own safety. Hence, the reason I'm not sold on Bryant's innocence.
You could be right as far as Bryant not being a fighter, so to speak. But that shouldn't be an excuse for killing someone on a bicycle when you are in a car. A lot of time passed in those 100 metres down the road - we all know how fast the mind works when in an unexpected situation.
Some people have no regards for human life,
Politicians included. I don't think we need a history lesson on that. | |
|
| Michael Bryant and Darcy Sheppard
Posted: 9/8/2009 9:15:05 PM | Ever seen some of these cyclist downtown, some of them ride like morons, then again some of the drivers on the road are idiots too.
Look .....As far as im concerned Mr.Sheppard's death was a accident waiting to happen, like i said its easy to be a Monday morning armchair quarterback and say i wouldn't do this, I would have done that, Im pretty sure if that happened to me I would stop and if he took a shot at me I can defend my self , and If I have my godchildren in the car and this guy ( sheppard) did that, yeah I would of beaten his ass, its either his ass or the safety of my godchildren,sorry he loses. | |
|
Home
login 
