| Michael Bryant and Darcy Sheppard
Posted: 9/9/2009 6:13:07 AM |
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?
Even if the cyclist had full control of the wheel, it was Bryant's concious decision NOT to apply the brake. Let's look at it from the cyclist's perspective
Scenario 1: You've had a minor altercation, perhaps exchanged words. The driver is attempting to drive off prior to settling the dispute (perhaps, as the cyclist, you wanted Bryant's personal information - to file a complaint? We will never know.) You reach out to grab the driver - to detain him - and he takes off - you are pulled from your cycle and are now dangling over the door of the car! Your only 'weapon' being the bike lock - you start bashing it on the car demanding the driver stop! The driver accelerates - and is now going 50 kh - If you release the car at this speed, you will most surely be injured, if not run over and killed. You hang on for dear life - the driver now attempts to run you into stationary objects. You are dead.
Is this really an implausible scenario? Would Bryant be faultless?
For the record NO, I am not defending the cyclists initial action - however I do not believe it was punishable by DEATH! | |
|
| Michael Bryant and Darcy Sheppard
Posted: 9/9/2009 12:33:14 PM | The question is,why would this space cadet chase after a car? most people will get the license plate, a witness or two and report them, unless things are different in the US of A.
I dont fault Bryant one bit, its the dumb ass who was riding a bike intoxicated is at fault, riding, driving, boating, rollerblading ,what ever, you do those things while intoxicated youre taking your chances with your own life or someone else is life.
Its a tragedy which I hope others will look at and think, should I ride drunk and act like a dumb ass and go after cars when one rides a bike? | |
|
| Michael Bryant and Darcy Sheppard
Posted: 9/9/2009 2:06:45 PM |
I dont fault Bryant one bit
Sorry. But killing a person does impose some sort of guilt. How a guy hanging from his car deserves to die, is beyond me. There was a minimum two points of impact, leaving the road surface and travelling the length of a football field.
If he was in such danger then how did it come about that he got out of his car and remained at the scene of the accident? I suppose all his hysteria suddenly vanished (conveniently)?
Its a tragedy which I hope others will look at and think, should I ride drunk and act like a dumb ass and go after cars when one rides a bike?
What about vehicle owners? Are they free to accelerate at will?
I'm not taking sides. I just find it incredible that a driver lost control of his mind and car up until the cyclist was killed..... something isn't adding up.
The question is,why would this space cadet chase after a car? most people will get the license plate, a witness or two and report them
And most car drivers wouldn't behave like Bryant did.... who can be commended for good behaviour?
Answer: Neither of them. | |
|
| Michael Bryant and Darcy Sheppard
Posted: 9/9/2009 2:22:02 PM |
Sorry. But killing a person does impose some sort of guilt. How a guy hanging from his car deserves to die, is beyond me. There was a minimum two points of impact, leaving the road surface and travelling the length of a football field.
If he was in such danger then how did it come about that he got out of his car and remained at the scene of the accident? I suppose all his hysteria suddenly vanished (conveniently)? what part of the cyclist was chasing the car didnt you understand? look im not defending Mr.Bryant, I let his lawyers do that, who set the events into motion?
OFF Topic, I hate supposition but sometimes its necessary , If I get loaded/sloshed/wasted/drunk/intoxicated/ripped what ever the term, and I walked into a bank with a toy guy, and the cops show up do the cops have the right to shoot me dead or wound me?
my point if im stupid enough to go into a bank with a toy gun (never mind that im drunk with anger issues) the cops have the right to shoot me, and my point is . if some nut is chasing the car and grabs on to it, the driver has the right to avoid confrontation, yes in this case it ended up in a death but you cant say Mr. Bryant was 100% at fault.
What about vehicle owners? Are they free to accelerate at will? thats not the point here, lets stick to this case
And most car drivers wouldn't behave like Bryant did.... who can be commended for good behaviour?
Answer: Neither of them. how do you know most drivers wouldnt behave that way, you dont know, i know most of my friends who are in the martial arts would of stop and a few might take exception and toss him a beating if the cyclist was to lunge at them. | |
|
| Michael Bryant and Darcy Sheppard
Posted: 9/9/2009 7:56:52 PM | I'm begining to thing My I is arguing for the sake of arguing.
If a situation becomes a toss up - you versus them, who are you going to pick? If you truly believe yourself to be in mortal danger, what would you pick? In this case, for whatever reason, the cyclist became attached on the DRIVER's side - not the passenger side or on the hood which is where he should have been if it was an accident. Maybe he was drunk, pissed at the world, and picking a fight with a flyweight in a saab who looked like a reasonable outlet to someone lashing out. Who knows.
For whatever reason, Bryant found himself in a situation few of us will ever experience. To brake or not to brake - that is the question. To suffer the slings and bicycle locks upside the head or to try to escape by any means possible which is what is required in order to avoid a fight? That is the question. No one knows what the answer would be as, deliberate or accidental, Darcy Sheppard didn't get to carry on the conversation or confrontation. The Courts will add the punch line. What I'd like to know is the wife's perspective. I'd like to hear her testimony.
And there is a difference between guilt and remorse. | |
|
| Michael Bryant and Darcy Sheppard
Posted: 9/9/2009 8:17:24 PM | amen Candid 1, amen
I was thinking the same thing if MY I was just breaking balls for the sake of breaking balls.
Yeah I get the point someone died, but who set the events in motion, Im sorry if this dumb ass decides to chase cars to pick a fight with someone youre taking your life in your own hands and in this case he lost his life. | |
|
| Michael Bryant and Darcy Sheppard
Posted: 9/10/2009 4:47:56 PM | | You know I don't think MY I realizes how fast things can happen and how quickly things can escalate. I remember one night in a club I managed in the 1980's that a fight broke out in the pool table area of the club. One guy ended up smacking a guys girlfriend and breaking her nose ,then that guy nailed him with a pool cue. I got him subdued face down on the pool table in a full nelson. Next thing I know someone else had me yanked to my feet with a pool cue cinched around my wind pipe. My eyes apparently were rolled back in my head and I was pretty much out on my feet when one of my waitresses smashed a 26er over the guys head. So total casualties were One girl with a broken nose, one guy with a broken jaw with a pool cue, one guy with a dislocated shoulder from me inadvertently popping it when the other guy lifted me up. Me with a monster bruise on my throat for 3 weeks, and oneguy with 125 stitches from the 26er to the head. Total elapsed time from most witnesses was 30 to 40 seconds from beginning to end. A hell of lot of things happened in that short time. Things move in slow motion as we dissect things like Bryant and Sheppards situations on this forum but that night for both of them things moved in fast motion. No-one can say they would have done this or would have done that, because lets face it how would you know unless it actually happens. I think there will be a lot more witnesses come forward as the trial nears, some credible and some not so credible. That my friends is why we have jurys! | |
|
| Michael Bryant and Darcy Sheppard
Posted: 9/12/2009 3:43:10 AM |
But killing a person does impose some sort of guilt. Why? When the person that died is in the commission of a crime, does the person defending themselves deserve to pay for the crime of another?
Sheppard had a choice... he chose to attack Bryant... the result is that he died. He shouldn't be canonized for his actions.
As for Bryant being a meek, man... nah... he practised pugilism...
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/article967360.ece
I maintain my position that Bryant reacted in a reasonable manner... regardless of his prior training in any defensive manner, its extremely difficult to assume the stance when you're behind the wheel...
Furthermore... self-defence courses are constantly teaching women to disable the attacker if possible and run like hell... at no point have I ever been told to be careful that I don't hurt the guy and get charged with something because of I'm trying to protect myself. | |
|
| Michael Bryant and Darcy Sheppard
Posted: 9/12/2009 2:53:55 PM | | I don't fault Michael Bryant one bit. But allow the evidence to do the talking in court. Then we'll know. | |
|
| Michael Bryant and Darcy Sheppard
Posted: 9/12/2009 2:57:53 PM | The day will come in court, when Michael Bryant is found NOT guilty.
Get ready for another blockade on the Gardiner Expressway.  | |
|
| Michael Bryant and Darcy Sheppard
Posted: 9/12/2009 3:13:46 PM | I did some more reading and found this article (wish I would have saved the address):
Darcy Sheppard left a social gathering where there may have been drinking. It seems to be more like a casual after-work drink and according to witnesses at the party, Sheppard was not drunk when he left. There may have been an unrelated incident earlier involving Sheppard's fiance. Then an hour later Sheppard and Bryant encounter each other on Bloor street. Witnesses say that Bryant in a black convertible began honking at Sheppard. Bryant probably yelled back. According to one witness Bryant may have hit the back wheel of Sheppard's bike with his car. At this point Sheppard left his bike and approached Bryant on the drivers side of the car. Some sort of yelling match ensued and it appears Sheppard was holding on to the open convertible perhaps to prevent Bryant from leaving the scene. Then Bryant chose to start the car while Bryant was still holding on. Bryant was dragged a considerable distance. Sheppard may have, before or while being dragged, attempted to grab the wheel of the Saab. Witnesses then, describe a horrific scene where the Saab crossed the street and ran against trees and a mailbox until Sheppard fell under the rear wheels and sustained injuries that resulted in his death.
My position remains as is. I'm not creating an argument for the sake of prolonging discussion. I simply can't believe the driver was in the state of shock you all claim he was in.
The article went further, in regards to allegations that Bryant struck the back tire of the cyclist:
<div class='quote'>However, if it was, as some witnesses describe, the kind of willful use of an automobile to cause damage or terrorize a cyclist we should cease to think of Bryant's Saab as a car. It becomes in that context a weapon. And I think that treating Bryant's car as a weapon gives important context to what happens next | |
|
| Michael Bryant and Darcy Sheppard
Posted: 9/12/2009 3:31:38 PM | ^^^ you do realize that the article contradicts accounts by his friends who are pissed at Police for letting him out of the cruiser? How convenient not to be able to sight the source of that article... lord knows, if it's written - be it internet or print, it must be gospel.
I had a conversation with a woman the other day who was upset that Police charged her son with trespassing and intoxication in public. I asked what were they expected to do with him if he is not at home, drunk in public, but not driving? Let him loose? They locked him up for the night, but at least he arrived home safe in the morning. Again, an easy Monday morning quarterback call. | |
|
| Michael Bryant and Darcy Sheppard
Posted: 9/12/2009 4:11:44 PM |
How convenient not to be able to sight the source of that article... lord knows, if it's written - be it internet or print, it must be gospel.
Sorry to have disappointed anyone for not noting the site - I'll do a search if need be. But I do know it was an article written by a news/media reporter who was doing the article about cyclists and drivers not willfully sharing the road. He was investigating the case.
you do realize that the article contradicts accounts by his friends who are pissed at Police for letting him out of the cruiser?
What does that suggest? Were the friends right? Were the cops wrong? Vise versa?
The fact that Bryant resigned from his job over this incident makes me wonder why anyone would do such a thing. If Bryant was attacked, presumed innocent of wrongdoing, and not the perpetrator, he has nothing to worry about secularly speaking.
Some common sense things just don't add up. | |
|
| Michael Bryant and Darcy Sheppard
Posted: 9/12/2009 4:52:34 PM |
^^^ you do realize that the article contradicts accounts by his friends who are pissed at Police for letting him out of the cruiser? How convenient not to be able to sight the source of that article... lord knows, if it's written - be it internet or print, it must be gospel. It appears the lovely lady is correct... it's not a news article, it's an arguement as stated at the end of the blog / opinion paper.
http://communities.canada.com/montrealgazette/print.aspx?postid=339294
(parts of this were edited later because i felt they might have distracted from the arguements I wanted to make) | |
|
| Michael Bryant and Darcy Sheppard
Posted: 9/12/2009 5:44:38 PM | The Globe and Mail..... Sept 7/2009...
As former Ontario attorney-general Michael Bryant awaits his first court date on charges of criminal negligence in the death of bike courier Darcy Allan Sheppard, some hard questions are being asked about how two police officers handled a trouble call involving Mr. Sheppard earlier that evening.
Summoned to Mr. Sheppard's girlfriend's downtown home, those officers from 51 Division questioned Mr. Sheppard and then allowed him to cycle away, despite the fact that he had dozens of arrest warrants outstanding and despite the fact that he had evidently been drinking.
So how did he come to be released, with such fateful consequences?
In part, the answer is rooted in Canada's arrest-warrant system.
An erratic figure with a history of alcohol problems, Mr. Sheppard, 33, had never been convicted of any crime.
But he had had many run-ins with police in Edmonton, who had issued 61 Alberta arrest warrants for him, chiefly for property theft and writing bad checks. | |
|
| Michael Bryant and Darcy Sheppard
Posted: 9/12/2009 6:20:54 PM | The fact that Bryant resigned from his job over this incident makes me wonder why anyone would do such a thing. If Bryant was attacked, presumed innocent of wrongdoing, and not the perpetrator, he has nothing to worry about secularly speaking.
Bryant - whether guilty or innocent, could not have any choice, but to resign. If he hadn't stepped down, they would have forced him to do so or take a leave of absence. Anyone in a position of power or in such a public position could not function with this kind of cloud hanging over him.
Every single aspect of this case is going to be conducted in a by-the-book transparent manner. Justice must appear to be seen to be done as well as done. Basic tenet of law 101. This is akin to Fantino being charged or someone of his ilk - I mean c'mon - think - Bryant was the former Attorney General of Ontario. Every single Crown attorney was under his direction. There will be a bending over backwards to avoid any allegation of bias.
As for the cops, you don't think this is going to prompt an investigation? Damned if they do (Charter violations) and damned if they don't (look what happened). Every aspect of this case will be under the microscope... and the trouble with warrants is they are not convictions. | |
|
| Michael Bryant and Darcy Sheppard
Posted: 9/12/2009 9:25:59 PM |
Bryant - whether guilty or innocent, could not have any choice, but to resign. If he hadn't stepped down, they would have forced him to do so or take a leave of absence
His passport was taken away and he is restricted from driving. His job required him to travel. Either way, I think those are fairly serious charges laid against a person with his status..... I don't think the charges would be laid if the case wasn't worthy of prosecuting.
Anyone in a position of power or in such a public position could not function with this kind of cloud hanging over him.
I think it's more of an image factor for his employer and nothing to do with his ability to function, or not.
I'm not saying I am right in my position. I simply cannot fathom someone dragging a body on a car that distance, slamming him against objects and never crashing (that's nearly a miracle) into any of the posts, trees, etc. Neither can I imagine a cyclist being able to hold on that long and remain fighting/battling a person while strewn about. In a physical sense, that's quite a task.
It appears as though most of you are of the opinion that the cyclist was still fighting with the driver 'till he fell, as opposed to going into panic mode and protecting himself from falling off the car. I think it's reasonable, at this point, to assume there became a point where the cyclist was in "survival" mode and the driver continued on with the intention of knocking the cyclist off his car; thus, being an act of agression - not an act of defense. | |
|
| Michael Bryant and Darcy Sheppard
Posted: 9/13/2009 6:08:49 AM |
I don't think the charges would be laid if the case wasn't worthy of prosecuting. Almost any time a collison or personal injury occurs, Police will lay charges. It is rare for them not to and even if it's only a single vehicle involved, they will still lay a charge. It's then up to the Crown to decide if there is a reasonable prospect of conviction based on the circumstances and the elements of the offence. In this case, even if there was not enough evidence to provide a reasonable prospect of conviction, the Crown would proceed. It's the only way for all the evidence and facts surrounding this event to come to light.
I think it's reasonable, at this point, to assume there became a point where the cyclist was in "survival" mode Yes, but at what point in the estimated 7 seconds would the haze of alcohol clear and instinct kick in?
the driver continued on with the intention of knocking the cyclist off his car; thus, being an act of agression - not an act of defense.
Again, at what point during the estimated 7 seconds was this intent formed? In order to prove that he committed this offence knowingly the mental element would need to be proven. It also could be argued that his intent was to flee not fight. The act and the mental intent are 2 different things. The result may be the same. | |
|
| Michael Bryant and Darcy Sheppard
Posted: 9/13/2009 7:19:22 AM |
Yes, but at what point in the estimated 7 seconds would the haze of alcohol clear and instinct kick in?
Unfortunately, I've been in a few incidents. That seven seconds can seem to be like seven minutes because one's mind is racing like crazy. From my experience, I think within the first very few seconds you're mind goes from shock/surprise to a more active mindset - in very short time you grasp what is going on and respond to it. I've been in life threatening situations, including having a gun pointed at my head when I was young. As humans, not politicians or lawyers, we all share very similar instincts in these type situations.
The cyclists anger was stirred somehow. Bryant had something to do with it. I don't think Bryant's safety should be an issue/excuse any more than the safety of the cyclist. Bryant must accept some level of responsibility for letting the situation get out of hand. | |
|
| Michael Bryant and Darcy Sheppard
Posted: 9/13/2009 7:24:46 AM |
The cyclists anger was stirred somehow. Bryant had something to do with it. You know after the bus beheading I stopped looking for reasons why anyone does anything. Sometimes it truly does come down to being in the wrong place at the wrong time. | |
|
| Michael Bryant and Darcy Sheppard
Posted: 9/13/2009 7:32:03 AM |
You know after the bus beheading I stopped looking for reasons why anyone does anything
Let's hope everyone doesn't respond to situations based on other events as severe and as uncommon as the beheading. If that were the case we may as well live in a bubble. And given the episode with the "Bubble Boy" on Seinfeld, I'll take my chances.
(injecting some humour) | |
|
| Michael Bryant and Darcy Sheppard
Posted: 9/13/2009 10:13:23 AM |
The cyclists anger was stirred somehow.
"somehow???" Sounds like you don't know the facts of the case. You are guessing.
Bryant had something to do with it. Same as above, "had something to do with it" SOMETHING meaning you don't know anything. Nor were you a witness.
I don't think Bryant's safety should be an issue/excuse any more than the safety of the cyclist. Bryant must accept some level of responsibility for letting the situation get out of hand. Road rage involved both the driver and the cyclist. The court will debate the real FACTS of the case, not CNN or CP24. | |
|
| Michael Bryant and Darcy Sheppard
Posted: 9/13/2009 11:33:43 AM | Seems to me the cyclist was a little touched in the head. He have a superman complex or did the booze make him ten foot tall and bullet proof ?
You have to ask yourself how did he come to be hanging on the side of the vehicle in the first place and in the second place, why not let go when the vehicle started to move.
There are two types of people.
Those who hang on the sides of moving vehicles and die and those who don't and live.
What type are you? | |
|
| Michael Bryant and Darcy Sheppard
Posted: 9/13/2009 1:28:15 PM |
The cyclists anger was stirred somehow. Bryant had something to do with it. I don't think Bryant's safety should be an issue/excuse any more than the safety of the cyclist. are you kidding me with this nonsense?
Bryant must accept some level of responsibility for letting the situation get out of hand. you know what you have no idea what youre talking about, so Mr Bryant , should of stopped the car, and let the driver possibly beat him to a pulp, is that what you are saying?
The cyclist in question was a whack job, do you know many cyclist who would chase cars to get at the driver? | |
|
| Michael Bryant and Darcy Sheppard
Posted: 9/13/2009 2:08:51 PM | Imagine if Michael Bryant had of stopped his car, and got out, and then the cyclist beats him senselessly until Bryant's wife came out and clubbed the cyclist over the head, and maybe the cyclist is dead. Wow... the wife would be the one in trouble and everyone would want her sentenced to life !!! Wow, amazing how NOBODY thought of that possible scenerio.
The cyclist, if...he grabbed the guy's steering wheel, maybe shouldn't have done that. Why would being "drunk" be an excuse, when it isn't for drunk driving? Why would anybody grab the steering wheel of a moving car in the 1st place? The car wasn't in park, nor was it turned off. In my opinion, the moment he grabbed the wheel is what sealed his fate. I would never grab onto a window or door of a moving subway, even if I was drunk ! And if I did, would you all blame the subway driver? or would you blame it on the coal fired plants that provide the electricity? duhhh | |
|
Home
login 
