| Michael Bryant and Darcy Sheppard
Posted: 9/13/2009 7:31:23 PM |
are you kidding me with this nonsense?
It's not nonsense just because you disagree with me. If you want to be so judgmental of me, then post the facts. What I think is utter nonsense is what you posted before:
Unless he's a expert in combat art, which he isnt, why should he stop and possible face a beating?
What you've clearly indicated, for similar situations, is that people have the right to mow anyone down if they aren't skilled in combat arts. You're promoting vehicular homicide in lieu of such expertise..... that's nonsense.
you know what you have no idea what youre talking about
I'm offerring an opinion. You offer insults. Given that all of the facts aren't out, how could you assume you know what you are talking about?
The element of surprise and shock is a bit of a factor. However, there was some sort of altercation prior to the cyclist attacking the driver. Therefore, I believe Bryant was somewhat cognisant of what the cyclist "might do" and therefore could have possibly previewed in his mind what he was gong to do "if" he was attacked..... it's not as if he was sitting in the car and suddenly an irate cyclist attacked him.
Fact: We all know the cyclist hit against many objects.
After the first, second and consecutive impacts as well as scraping against the ground, some of you seem to be of the opinion the cyclist was able to physically withstand all of those impacts and continue fighting rather than trying to survive/hold on. I think Bryant will have a difficult time trying to prove his life was in jeopardy after the first impact, or so. | |
|
| Michael Bryant and Darcy Sheppard
Posted: 9/13/2009 7:43:14 PM |
Fact: We all know the cyclist hit against many objects. Police said Sheppard sustained severe injuries after striking a mailbox and a tree while still hanging on to the car. The courier, who grew up in Edmonton, died later that night in hospital.
After the first, second and consecutive impacts What are the consecutive impacts mentioned... I've been unable to find them in any news story and am greatly interested in this case.
some of you seem to be of the opinion the cyclist was able to physically withstand all of those impacts and continue fighting rather than trying to survive/hold on. I think Bryant will have a difficult time trying to prove his life was in jeopardy after the first impact, or so. What is a fact is that people under the influence of alcohol tend to withstand accidents far better than a sober person... what he was and wasn't capable of doing at the time is known only to Sheppard - not to anyone else including Bryant... | |
|
| Michael Bryant and Darcy Sheppard
Posted: 9/13/2009 7:44:17 PM | No MY I, you're arguing without merit, Im not telling you that you're wrong because you disagree with me, im telling you that you're wrong because you're wrong.
Youre twisting things around Jack, you offer opinion on what Mr.Bryant should of done in your eyes your monday morning armchair quarterback position. you were the one that called him ( Bryant) a coward.
Its easy to say , yeah he should of stopped, but you cant tell me if he would of stopped that Bryant may not of been attacked by the cyclist? can you ? you havent answered why would a cyclist chase down a car? | |
|
| Michael Bryant and Darcy Sheppard
Posted: 9/13/2009 8:34:12 PM | No MY I, you're arguing without merit, Im not telling you that you're wrong because you disagree with me, im telling you that you're wrong because you're wrong
Before you let your arrogance get the best of you, tell these reporters they are wrong as well:
http://www.njnnetwork.com/njn/?p=22443
The article posted:
"Traveling in an open convertible he may have felt at risk from Sheppard….. However, the police obviously are not buying Bryant’s story about what happened and have laid serious charges"
As well, from a CTV report:
Words were first exchanged, then at some point, the black Saab convertible and the bicycle bumped. Things escalated from there. For reasons that aren't yet clear, the victim grabbed the side of the car and wouldn't let go.
"What I saw was the car speeding up the wrong side of the road, with the injured man on the driver's side of the car holding on as tight as he could," witness Ryan Brazeau said. "And then the driver of the car pushing up against the curb, trying to knock him off on the poles as he went down the opposite side of the road."
Another witness said Sheppard hit a mailbox then the road. The back tires then ran over him.
The driver of the car continued on but stopped a short distance away at the Park Hyatt hotel......Burrows said they have received a number of reports from witnesses who were in the area and that they have answered many questions that investigators had about the crash.
How you can assume you are right is what I find most impressive (sarcasm) | |
|
| Michael Bryant and Darcy Sheppard
Posted: 9/13/2009 9:13:19 PM | ^^^ see this is why I prefer naked facts versus conclusions and imposing of mental beliefs. Sift through it... The victim grabbed the steering wheel... car speeding on the wrong side of the road. The car pushing up against the curb. Sheppard hit a mailbox then the road. The back tires ran over him. All this is without thoughts imposed. Those are facts. The Court will supply the conclusions.
Sheppard will be judged on actions demonstrated. They can only suppose his intentions. Bryant is available to testify as to belief. | |
|
| Michael Bryant and Darcy Sheppard
Posted: 9/13/2009 10:13:56 PM |
^^^ see this is why I prefer naked facts versus conclusions and imposing of mental beliefs....The Court will supply the conclusions
Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the court also judge based on conclusions and imposing of mental beliefs from Lawyers? O.J. Simpson's case is the first case that comes to mind, "If the glove don't fit, you must acquit." | |
|
| Michael Bryant and Darcy Sheppard
Posted: 9/13/2009 11:57:16 PM | However, the police obviously are not buying Bryant’s story about what happened and have laid serious charges"
Well, first off, the claim that "police obviously not buying Bryant's story" is simply the writer putting his or her own interpretation on the reasons that charges were laid. Fact is, the police will usually lay charges if there is enough evidence present to suggest that a crime may have taken place, but they are not the arbiters of guilt or innocence.
Let's not forget that it will ultimately fall to the judge and/or jury to decide whether a crime has in fact taken place based on their examination of all of the evidence available. You can bet the ranch that the writer's supposition "obviously" won't be part of that evidence.
Witness testimony will form part of that evidence. You chose one where the witness claims that the driver was deliberately trying to knock Sheppard off the car. Other witnesses claim that Sheppard had a hold of the steering wheel, so maybe it was Sheppard trying to force the car off the road. Either way, it doesn't really matter much. Either way, Bryant can still claim that he feared for his life and was trying to get away from a deranged man who was attacking him and his wife as they sat trapped inside their car.
If Bryant was deliberately trying to knock the guy off his car, he can claim he did so only to remove the threat to him and his wife, and did not have any deliberate intention of causing grievous injury to Sheppard. If Bryant was wrestling for control of the steering wheel, he could claim that he did not have full control of his car because of the attacker hanging onto the steering wheel, and as such he was not responsible for the path the car took as it crossed the road and brushed the tree and mailbox before finally knocking Sheppard off.
Please keep in mind that Bryant and any one of us here has full and complete right to safeguard his personal safety from an attacker using as much force as is reasonably required to end or escape an attack. Canada's Criminal Code allows a defender the right to continue to escalate a defensive response to a demonstrative threat until that threat is gone, and any harm inflicted on an attacker in such circumstances is considered to be justified.
Obviously, you can't deliberately use lethal force unless you have reasonable belief that you are facing potentially lethal force by an attacker, but the latitude the courts give on "your reasonable belief" in the heat of the moment is fairly broad. Further, even if you manage to kill or severely injure an attacker who wasn't actually presenting a lethal threat against you, you would still be consider innocent of wrongdoing unless the court is given evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that you actually intended to inflict death or serious injury on the attacker disproportionate to the threat actually posed by that attacker.
You keep going back to "Bryant must have done something to cause Sheppard's reaction", but so what?
The question the court will face is, was Bryant's response to Sheppard's attack, regardless of what may have instigated the attack, reasonable or not in light of all circumstances? The simple fact that Sheppard died as a result does not automatically make Bryant's response an unreasonable one.
Personally, I think Bryant is going to walk on this one. | |
|
| Michael Bryant and Darcy Sheppard
Posted: 9/13/2009 11:59:44 PM | I love how MY I keeps referring back to articles like they are 100% accurate. The thing in this day and age is that every newspaper and major radio or T.V station answers directly to the board or directors on which way they slant a story politically. There are not shortage of media outlets out there that didn't have some sort of axe to grind with Mr. Bryant to they were on it like flies at a picnic. I take most reports on things of this nature with a grain of salt, until they truly are reporting on facts from the actual courtroom. How many times have you read a article to see a reporter saying "Witnesses say......." only to find those people that were interviewed didn't even witness the actual incident. That is why the police conduct the investigation and take witness statements that the lawyers and the courts are privy to, not a reporter writing a story less than 2 hours after the incident trying to make a deadline.
In that same article you refer to MY I at the end it says "Friends of the victim Darcy Sheppard speak of him as a gentle man with a warm personality and a good father." Again that seems to be a nice slant portraying the victim as being a fantastic person and casting a bad light towards Bryant. However as more things come out about Sheppard it seems most of his friends say he was a hothead, and the police say he had so many outstanding arrest warrants for fraud, theft, etc, in Alberta you almost need a calculator to add them up, and as far as being a good father........ well he had 4 kids and yet only one of the mothers talked about him in the press. She had not even told her 5 year old that he was the kids father, only that he was her friend from Ontario. I didn't know the man and am not saying he was a horrible person, but he was also not the saint the first initial article made him out to be either.
I love as well that LINT SPOTTER found that article you alluded to earlier. My fave quote from the writer of the article was "As a cycling blogger I have no intention of hiding my bias towards the cyclist in this story. " Gee no one sided part on that writers behalf eh?
I will wait for witnesses on the stand in front of judge or jury to hear the facts rather than the conjecture I think. Not to mention I am very much looking forward to the testimony of the one true eyewitness to the whole proceeding, Mr. Bryants wife. | |
|
| Michael Bryant and Darcy Sheppard
Posted: 9/14/2009 4:49:21 AM | MY I, you missed my point completely , which doesnt surprise me
Why dont you blame LCBO or the Beer store for providing the alcohol that Mr.Sheppard drank before he set out on his bike.Blame the ex for riling him up before he went on his journey | |
|
| Michael Bryant and Darcy Sheppard
Posted: 9/14/2009 3:46:03 PM | CTV= CNN = CP24 = political agenda.
As a conservative supporter, I know the CTV despises Michael Bryant because he was a Liberal. Remember the mess they made of Stephane Dion some months ago? CTV did it. And instead of discussing the FACTS, CTV are making opinions based solely on the fact that Bryant was a Liberal cabinet minister, THEREFORE you can't believe everything the media says.
WOW, the 9/11 hijackers were from Afghanistan because CNN said so. I love that quote. Makes me laugh, especially since millions of people believe everything the news tells them. | |
|
| |
| Michael Bryant and Darcy Sheppard
Posted: 9/14/2009 6:30:10 PM | No MY I, you're arguing without merit, Im not telling you that you're wrong because you disagree with me, im telling you that you're wrong because you're wrong
Enjoy the video:
http://russ-campbell.blogspot.com/2009/09/video-of-bryant-sheppard-incident.html
From my perpsective, Bryant proceeded to pull into traffic without ensuring it was safe to do so. But that won't matter to some of you - you're judging Sheppard based on his history and on your inability to see things from both perspectives. I looked at it from both angles and my position was based on what I read.... even if it was bias and pro-conservative. Eye witness accounts weren't manufactured by the party(s) reporting.
Edit: After reviewing the video many times, it appears Bryant rammed him twice... it was the second time when the cyclist attacked Bryant. Thanks for the insults everyone - your arrogance and ignorance served you well. | |
|
| Michael Bryant and Darcy Sheppard
Posted: 9/14/2009 6:41:35 PM | MY I, I can see logic isnt your strong point, for the last time this is what Im saying, The friggen cyclist was intoxicated when he rode his bike , what idiot would ride a bike while on the sauce, thats taking his life in his own hands and unfortunately ended up losing his life.
That was my point!!!!!!
Im judging Sheppard because he was on the sauce while riding his bike and proceeded to chase down Bryant for what ever reason, most people who have a more than a modicum of intelligence sees a guy on a bike chasing them would probably wonder is this guy whacked or is he a piece of chicken short a snack pack.
Did you get that this time? | |
|
| Michael Bryant and Darcy Sheppard
Posted: 9/14/2009 7:13:20 PM |
MY I, I can see logic isnt your strong point....Im judging Sheppard because he was on the sauce
I can't understand your logic. Why would you focus on the state of mind of one person... rather than the state of mind of both? If Bryant would have not hit his bicycle, nobody would have a clue if Sheppard was drunk.
From my logical point of view, I evaluated things on the necessity of killing someone with a vehicle. After reading some accounts and now getting a view of the video I posted, the video kind of suggests I was being logical..... you weren't. You based the entire event on insobriety..... we still aren't certain as to what level of insobriety Sheppard was in. Logically, a low level of insobriety could be deemed a non-factor. | |
|
| Michael Bryant and Darcy Sheppard
Posted: 9/14/2009 7:20:01 PM | If the cyclist was driving a car, MY I would be saying something COMPLETELY different. There's no excuse for drinking and driving, and drinking and riding a bike and getting into an accident is still the same thing.
Was the car shifted in park? Sober or not, why would ANYONE chase after a car and grab the steering wheel while it was still moving? it wasn't turned off, the keys were in the ignition. It was NOT Michael Bryant's fault that this guy was drunk. It was NOT Michael Bryant's fault that this guy was wanted on over 60 warrants in another province. It was NOT Michael Bryant's fault that his car just so happens to be much bigger than a bicycle and when there's a collision involving both, the car will always win. It was NOT Michael Bryant's fault that this guy was already angry PRIOR to their altercation. It was NOT Michael Bryant's fault that this guy had problems and never learned to overcome them.
And, if and when Michael Bryant is found NOT guilty of criminal negligance causing death, it will NOT be Michael Bryant's fault when the cyclists of Toronto go out and block the Gardiner Expressway in protest. | |
|
| Michael Bryant and Darcy Sheppard
Posted: 9/14/2009 7:52:36 PM | Tell you what Im going to get smashed and then I will post and If I call you a dumb f*ck dont hold it against me ok? because i dont always drink beer, but when i do I drink Dos equis
Stay thirsty my friend 
hit me one more time bartender | |
|
| Michael Bryant and Darcy Sheppard
Posted: 9/15/2009 7:42:01 AM | You guys can mock me all you want. I never bought the story that Bryant was in shock... it didn't seem reasonable. After reviewing the video several times, your assumption that Bryant was in shock is very weak.
- The video clearly shows the cyclist with his back to Bryant who was in the vehicle.
- The video clearly shows Bryant ramming the bicycle with Sheppard's back facing the car.
- The video clearly shows Bryant fleeing the scene of the accident/incident/assault (whatever you want to deem it)
- The video clearly shows Sheppard lunging at the vehicle as Bryant tried to flee.
- The video does not show Sheppard attacking a vehicle that is stationary.... as many of you seem to be the case.
Given Bryant's decision to ram the bicycle and basing Bryant's behaviour after ramming the cyclist (fleeing the scene), I don't think Bryant's behaviour is excusable. It seems rather apparent Bryant turned a verbal confrontation into an act of physical violence. Bryant was obviously angry (not scared) at the cyclist and acted out his anger. It was road rage.
At the least, I can see Bryant being charged assault with a vehicle and fleeing the scene. It was the act of fleeing that caused the cyclist to jump at the vehicle. Alcohol may have something to do with Sheppard grabbing the car. But, it's not quite certain how much drinking shepard did.
As opposed to some of the posts in this thread. I'm guessing that Bryant had very little concern about his wife's safety and more of a desire to press his luck. He messed with a total stranger over space on the road - that was stupid. But then again, road rage is an act of stupidity. | |
|
| Michael Bryant and Darcy Sheppard
Posted: 9/15/2009 10:31:35 AM | Dude, I think you like arguing for the sake of arguing, you're not making any sense, the point for the 1000 TIME, is/ was /and that and that too, riding a bike DRUNK, which set off a chain of events, nobody saying Mr.Bryant is 100% innocent
Did you get that this time, or Shall I dumb it down for you even more? let the court do their thing and sort of the mess according to the law. | |
|
| Michael Bryant and Darcy Sheppard
Posted: 9/15/2009 10:56:39 AM | sooo, um...when does the hair pulling and the eye gouging being..*grabs his beer and chips and sits on the sofa for the entertainment to begin*
ok ok, i hate to be  but it's time to wade into this conversation again *puts on his knee high water boots...this could get messy*
lol
i find it really interesting that for the last page the conversation has gone in a circle. so i'd like to shift it to a new direction *get ready with more mud folks*.
Lets talk about he media impact on people's opinions. some of the previous posters have mentioned (and rightly so) that there is no such thing as a unbiased media or viewpoint. How much of YOUR opinion do you feel is based on what you have read in the news and do you feel that you have a tendency to read/view only articles of a certain slant. for example, do you like to mostly read articles that consider Bryant guilty or innocent.
this is not a thread hijack but in keeping with OP's wishes to discuss the issue. the media impact is huge and very relevant to the issue.
so my questions are....
1) do you consider media to be impartial *snicker* or do you feel that all the media you have viewed/read has a slant on the article
2) do YOU feel that you are not only going to the mainstream media but also to blogs, etc to get your news on this article
3) do you feel that people have a tendency (regarding this issue only please so lets keep to the topic) view blogs as news when in fact they are personal opinion
4) what effect will the media blitz of this issue have on Bryant.
please do not talk about things NOT related to this article. i don't not want opinions on what you think of someone's blog on rivers, just this issue only please. | |
|
| Michael Bryant and Darcy Sheppard
Posted: 9/15/2009 3:55:38 PM | - The video does not show Sheppard attacking a vehicle that is stationary.... as many of you seem to be the case.
I have REPEATEDLY asked why would ANYONE grab onto a vehicle that was NOT in park, and was moving?
I love how MY I is ignoring my questions. It seems he is unable to answer JUST one of them.
I rest my case. I have nothing further to add to this one-sided debate. | |
|
| Michael Bryant and Darcy Sheppard
Posted: 9/15/2009 7:22:59 PM |
Dude, I think you like arguing for the sake of arguing, you're not making any sense, the point for the 1000 TIME, is/ was /and that and that too, riding a bike DRUNK, which set off a chain of events, nobody saying Mr.Bryant is 100% innocent
I agree, the issue of alcohol is present. The level of insobriety hasn't been published.
You seem to be of the opinion Sheppard was highly intoxicated. All I've read was that he had a social drink(s) with coworkers after work. There seems to be a lot of conflicting reports about Sheppard's insobriety so I considered his insobriety - but that doesn't exclude the fact Bryant was aggressive with his car.
nobody saying Mr.Bryant is 100% innocent
I've reread your posts, nowhere have you suggested Bryant was partially guilty. You did post:
I dont fault Bryant one bit
^^ That does suggest you find him innocent and justified in his behaviour. Suggesting, the cyclist was fully responsible for the entire incident. You want to stay focussed on the alcohol factor. The bottom line is, Bryant escalated the situation when he used his car to knock the cyclist to the ground. From what I saw in the video, Sheppard may have been hot tempered but he never approached the car prior to Bryant knocking him off his bicycle.
I have REPEATEDLY asked why would ANYONE grab onto a vehicle that was NOT in park, and was moving?
I love how MY I is ignoring my questions. It seems he is unable to answer JUST one of them.
I rest my case. I have nothing further to add to this one-sided debate
Rest your case, then.
I'd like to know why anyone would engage in such a trivial matter like "owning" part of the road? I think Bryant and Sheppard displayed the same acts of stupidity - one person used his vehicle for an assault; another person jumped at the vehicle while moving. Both stupid!!!!
The most important factor, in my opinion, is that Bryant had full control of his vehicle, and his senses, yet chose to ram the cyclist who didn't want to give up some space on the road. This is where I feel Bryant totally screwed himself over..... now Bryant has to convince the courts the rest of the incident (slamming the cyclist against objects) wasn't a continuation of road rage.
Davey. My repsonse to your question:
I have REPEATEDLY asked why would ANYONE grab onto a vehicle that was NOT in park, and was moving?
My answer: I don't know. Road rage (alcohol induced, or not) is an ugly animal. Here's an incident I googled - alcohol was never mentioned as a factor yet the behaviour is irrational and unecessary (uttering death threat):
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?k=53693&id=3de2cba7-fa31-486d-8430-116aa0d25a22
I also went to the ontario government website re: road rage. One of the simplest actions to take in a road rage case is to say, "I'm sorry" from either party. That way, the potential of de-escalation is present. I guess egos weren't in check that night. | |
|
| Michael Bryant and Darcy Sheppard
Posted: 9/15/2009 10:10:11 PM |
Dude, I think you like arguing for the sake of arguing, you're not making any sense,
I'm kind of getting tired of your insults. You obviously lack the ability to consider other possibilities.... you seem to be happy insulting others rather than seeking the truth. Maybe you should place your ego in check.
Your claim:
the point for the 1000 TIME, is/ was /and that and that too, riding a bike DRUNK, which set off a chain of events
^^ I don't think so. Watch the very beginning of the video - which is about the most concrete evidence you and I have. You will clearly see that Bryant put his car in motion at the same time the cyclist was PASSING BRYANT"S PARKED CAR.
Alcohol had nothing to do with Bryant's failure to check traffic. Failing to make sure traffic was clear is what provoked confrontation.... not Sheppard's insobriety. | |
|
| Michael Bryant and Darcy Sheppard
Posted: 9/16/2009 4:17:50 PM | The videos are open for interpretation. Who was angry, who became aggressive first, etc.
There's no doubt Bryant used the vehicle to kill someone on purpose. If there's another reason to charge someone with vehicular homicide I'd like to know what it is.
The question might be whether it was justifiable based on any number of provocations and fear or emerging violence Bryant felt he was facing from the bicyclist, both towards himself and his passenger.
Frankly I'd be quite happy to hang Bryant by his balls on Young Street, just so all the psychotic neo-cons can get a hint of the dangers of running through life like they were wearing skates with razors as blades to slide over the backs of us lowlifes, nerdowells and bikers. | |
|
| Michael Bryant and Darcy Sheppard
Posted: 9/16/2009 4:53:46 PM | The videos are open for interpretation. Who was angry, who became aggressive first, etc.
I watched the video MY I posted... how do you know Sheppard didn't fall off his bike? I can't see an impact. What I do see is Sheppard pulling up on the driver's side and cutting in front. I see the bike fail to move. I see the bicyclist go down. I see Bryant back up. Next day news reels show the bike intact. Try watching without the annotations.
If there's another reason to charge someone with vehicular homicide I'd like to know what it is.
Fact: Sheppard died. Fact: a vehicle was involved. Fact: Bryant is the former AG of Ontario. There is another reason to charge him other than guilt. It is imperative that justice been seen to be done. They will not and cannot take what Bryant says as fact. The facts will be aired for all to hear - in a Court of Law. The Court will reach the conclusions - yes, MY I, the Judge will reach conclusions based on SUBMISSIONS OF COUNSEL, and it is the Judge who will decide guilt or innocence. The whole affair must be conducted publicly or no one will accept the verdict. | |
|
| Michael Bryant and Darcy Sheppard
Posted: 9/16/2009 5:23:28 PM |
There's no doubt Bryant used the vehicle to kill someone on purpose. Really?
I personally see a lot of reason for doubt. Then again, I don't have testosterone coursing through my veins so I tend to see things a little differently than others...
Frankly I'd be quite happy to hang Bryant by his balls on Young Street, just so all the psychotic neo-cons can get a hint of the dangers of running through life like they were wearing skates with razors as blades to slide over the backs of us lowlifes, nerdowells and bikers. Wow... just wow...
Grab the pitchforks and let's have a lynchin' huh? | |
|
Home
login 
