| Michael Bryant and Darcy Sheppard
Posted: 9/16/2009 5:37:31 PM |
The question might be whether it was justifiable
I'm not so certain about that. If that were the case, at the least Bryant could very well have been charged with something like endangering public safety - his choice to accelerate and drive erratically put a lot of innocent bystanders at risk.
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.
I saw the same as you did, that is why I checked it out several times. If you watch the video from 0:17 - 0:21, you can see Bryant stop directly behind the cyclist. He was at a stop for a brief second and then as the video at that angle ends you can see Sheppard and his bike being thrust forward. At the 0:21 - 0:22 mark you can see Bryant come to an abrupt stop and the cyclist skid further from the momentum/impact. At least that's what I see.
I used the anotations as reference but I didn't let it sway me one way or the other.... the posters in this thread would have a field day on me if I did that. | |
|
| Michael Bryant and Darcy Sheppard
Posted: 9/16/2009 5:51:34 PM | Well lets get the simple thing out of the way...as for what the Police did...they would be damned if they did and damned if they didn't...if they didn't charge him then they would be accused of playing favorites. If they did they would be and have been accused of acting to quickly because of who he is. When in jail and before being released the suspect can have someone bring them clothes to change into before leaving. Considering the limelight he would be in leaving the Police Station I would want to look my best if cameras were going to be there.
As for the charges, on the surface they appear to be proper and I agree with them based on what I have heard and read second hand. However I have concerns that the more serious charge of Criminal Negligence Causing Death may end up not holding up in court as the defence may make a good case bringing up the cyclists background and the fact that he was drinking and the incident with Police earlier that night.
Its true that the infrastrucure does not allow cyclists and vehcile to share the road easily but at the same time I have seen many cyclists not follow the rules they are required to. I cycle a lot and enjoy it but no longer use the road, only trails and designated paths. Anyone can buy a bike but so many cyclists know nothing of the rules they are suppose to follow. Cyclists are required by law to follow the same rules of the road as cars and can be charged the same way as a driver of a car for failure to do so. Yet everyday cyclists are on the sidewalks, riding across crosswalks, running red lights and stop signs and many many more. BUT...drivers are equally responsible to share the road safely with them.
We will all have to wait and see how this plays out. | |
|
| Michael Bryant and Darcy Sheppard
Posted: 9/16/2009 7:24:43 PM |
Watch the very beginning of the video - which is about the most concrete evidence you and I have.
THE VIDEO IS EDITED jackass !!! Where is the rest of the video? You know? The previous 60 mins of it !!! hello mcfly? anybody home? hello ???
Does Rodney King ring a bell? Do you know what I'm talking about? You don't, so let me EDUCATE you..... the video of Rodney King shows the beating, but it does NOT show him shooting up drugs and then getting into a car and nearly killing somebody while the police were in pursuit. NONE OF THAT EVIDENCE was on that video, so what kind of BS evidence do you think you have there?
AGAIN I rest MY case. Your evidence means squat !! | |
|
| Michael Bryant and Darcy Sheppard
Posted: 9/16/2009 7:26:35 PM |
If there's another reason to charge someone with vehicular homicide I'd like to know what it is.
This incident did NOT occur in Atlanta, GA. It happened in Toronto, CANADA !!
Wake up ! | |
|
| Michael Bryant and Darcy Sheppard
Posted: 9/25/2009 4:44:24 PM | The night of August 31, Darcy Allan Sheppard was on his bike on Bloor Street, riding home from his fiancee’s apartment. It was 9:45 p.m. As he approached a traffic light, he passed to the left of a Saab convertible that we now know was Michael Bryant’s. After passing Bryant, who was stopped at the light, Sheppard cut in front of his car and also came to a stop. Shortly thereafter, as the light turned green, Bryant drove forward, perhaps bumping Sheppard’s wheel. Sheppard turned his head back, in Bryant’s direction. Witnesses reported that when the light turned green, there was a toot of the horn from Bryant, and a shout to “get moving,” followed—perhaps—by a return shout from Sheppard. Then, incredibly, Bryant hit the gas, pushing Sheppard forward into the intersection, knocking him off his bike. As Sheppard struggled to get to his feet, Bryant backed up, stopped, turned his wheel and began to drive past Sheppard as he sped away.
Sheppard gave chase, grabbing onto Bryant’s car as it sped by. Witnesses reported hearing shouting, and noted that Bryant was “very, very angry.” They also reported that as Bryant sped down the street with Sheppard clinging to his car, he was driving on the wrong side of the street, at about 60 miles per hour, driving up onto the sidewalk, driving against the trees and posts and newspaper boxes lining the street in what they reported appeared to be an attempt to brush Sheppard off his car. Down the street 100 yards, Sheppard was slammed into a mail collection box, and crumpled into a heap in the street as Bryant’s rear wheels ran over him. Witnesses reported that Sheppard, who lay in the street bleeding heavily from his nose and mouth, attempted to get up, but was advised to remain still until an ambulance arrived. Bryant continued driving down the street to the end of the block, before turning in to the driveway of a luxury hotel, where he finally stopped his car.
Source:
http://bicycling.com/blogs/roadrights/2009/09/16/when-worlds-collide/
Its clear that Bryant was the raging homocidal maniac here. It took an American reporter and blogger to set us straight. Sadly, the Canadian press coverage has been juvenile.
I hope this sets the record straight. I dont know about you guys, but if someone nudged me purposefully from behind I would be VERY tempted to take out my New York kryptonite lock and prepare for the worst. | |
|
| Michael Bryant and Darcy Sheppard
Posted: 9/30/2009 6:01:32 PM |
Its clear that Bryant was the raging homocidal maniac here. It took an American reporter and blogger to set us straight. Sadly, the Canadian press coverage has been juvenile. Blogs are simply opinions, not facts... they hold no more weight than anyone else's opinion and this certainly does not sway mine in the least.
I'll be the first to cheer when Bryant walks free. | |
|
| Michael Bryant and Darcy Sheppard
Posted: 10/4/2009 9:47:20 AM | I've someone holding the side of my car, they've seriously pissed me off on my drive to my high power a**h*le licking and b*tt grooming position on Bay Street. I swerve over to smash the twit into a few bushes, he doesn't fall off - so I veer across at a mailbox and slam him into it, the wheel jerks in my hand from the impact, blood and spinal fluid spurts onto my window, I keep on driving to launch him into solidly bolted down pieces of roadside crap tromping on the gas and smiling grimmly as my wheels skate over his body.
The question doesn't seem to be whether Bryant had every intention of murdering the dude but whether it was justified. The people who are arguing stridently that he should get off are low voice supporting the "it was justified" position. There's zero doubt he was completely aware that his driving was likely to result in death.
If I'm at a pub late at night and just haul out and smack some guy across the head with a sucker punch, drag him across the parking lot and kick his head into a curb -- and miraculously he survives that is still attempted murder. If Bryant was unsuccessful in killing by doing what he did it would have been a surprise and attempted murder. The weight of the material that we're aware of certainly points towards extreme disregard for human life. That's murder when it causes death. When violence causing death was triggered by the actions of the deceased in some manner that average people cannot extract themselves without violence that is referred to as justifiable homicide.
Manslaughter, 1st and 2nd degree murder and a bunch of other niceties are buttoned up tightversions of this that allow laxity in sentencing and get around canada's guaranteed 25 year stint business. Its still murder. | |
|
| Michael Bryant and Darcy Sheppard
Posted: 10/4/2009 9:53:12 AM |
There's zero doubt he was completely aware that his driving was likely to result in death. This isn't true... there is doubt. I and many others have expressed it continuously throughout this thread.
Your play by play, while dramatic, is simply conjecture... | |
|
| Michael Bryant and Darcy Sheppard
Posted: 10/4/2009 10:33:30 AM | My play by play understates, it was much more grim and visceral.
Maybe in the car he wasn't completely aware that the jerking wheel, snapping of limbs against the door, crunching sounds from hard impacts and sudden odors were not some sort of other world experience, like TV but in a sports car. People who don't have the ability to immediately comprehend and moderate their violence are insane. We put them away when they show signs.
However he'll get off because we've an aversion to putting good money into imprisoning neo-cons. Recidivism is unlikely, he'll have the best lawyers while the province will only show passing interest in prosecution. That doesn't change the obvious - and it hints at a quiet divergence. That doublethink of reality is common during economic downturns but its sickening to witness. | |
|
| Michael Bryant and Darcy Sheppard
Posted: 10/4/2009 12:06:59 PM |
Maybe in the car he wasn't completely aware that the jerking wheel, snapping of limbs against the door, crunching sounds from hard impacts and sudden odors were not some sort of other world experience, like TV but in a sports car. While you are outlining the dramatics, let's not forget that there is a drunken maniac attached to the door, yelling and screaming obscenities while smashing a lock and chain against the car all the while trying to overtake control of the vehicle...
Let's not omit the smell of alcohol off of Sheppard's breath overpowering any other scent... the screaming in the driver's ear of the attacker is drowning out most everything else and the struggle for control now has the driver bracing himself against this assault, unfortunately, his foot is pressing down on the gas pedal causing the vehicle to accelerate.
It's all in perspective...
Does anyone know if Sheppard was nominated for a Darwin yet? | |
|
| Michael Bryant killed Darcy Sheppard
Posted: 10/15/2009 2:25:59 PM | Anyone leaving the scene of an accident (which witnesses said happened... Bryant hit the bike in some way) would be charged with leaving the scene. Doing so and killing the man who he hit in the first place makes him guilty of the offence for which he is charged. The Toronto police would have never laid the charge would it not have been warranted.... the fact he had no bail hearing it a sign of a Govt which has had its day.
One billion dollars stolen in E Health while we close hospitals.
Ontario Lotto Fiasco.
OPP Corruption....
It is time for a change and some REAL civilian oversight of our Polity. | |
|
| Michael Bryant killed Darcy Sheppard
Posted: 10/19/2009 5:35:36 PM |
The Toronto police would have never laid the charge would it not have been warranted.... the fact he had no bail hearing it a sign of a Govt which has had its day. The police laid charges because it was a road rage incident involving a cyclist and a driver, leaving one person dead. YOU would have been charged also, regardless if you left the scene or not. If there's a fight, and someone is dead, someone is charged, and then you have your day in court. | |
|
| Michael Bryant killed Darcy Sheppard
Posted: 10/19/2009 8:48:38 PM | Bryants first court date was today.
He didnt bother showing up. He sent his lawyer. I guess he stayed home and played world of warcraft or something. Funny how if I killed someone in my car i would have to go to court. But Bryant, the rich little prik...sends his lawyer in his stead.
Just deplorable. | |
|
| Michael Bryant killed Darcy Sheppard
Posted: 10/22/2009 2:44:40 PM |
Just deplorable.
Not really. It was just a pre trial court date to set another pre trial court date (Nov 16). The whole thing lasted a few minutes. It wasn't like anything was going to happen. All routine procedural stuff.
The meat of the matter, starting with the preliminary hearing, won't be until next year and the trial is probably at least a year away. Though Bryant's lawyer has indicated they want a trial sooner rather than later. | |
|
| Michael Bryant and Darcy Sheppard
Posted: 10/25/2009 3:13:26 PM | I see that the subtle and not so subtle spin put up by the Navigator, the public relations firm hired by Bryant, is quite effective on the general public.
Fact is, by his very position, Bryant has/had already been granted several extra-ordinary privileges that the average joe wouldn't have been given, at the scene of the incident.
He was out celebrating an occasion with his wife in Yorkville.. yet no breathalizer for possible impairment - even considering that his contributing issue to the incident may have been road-rage - was alcohol an influence? We'll never know .. why?
He was placed under no surity by the courts upon his booking and release. Why?
He wasn't actually placed into custody until several hours after the fact, by which time he'd had enough time to make his wife disappear, and make contact with Navigator and his lawyers. Why?
Would the average Joe have been granted these 'free passes'? I don't think so.
I wasn't aware that being intoxicated, was a free pass, for someone else to devalue someone's worth to the point of affecting a death sentence upon that person.
Apparently the police didn't think he was intoxicated to the point of needing to be put into custody for his own protection, despite being at public large.. and they would have done so, simply from a police contact/liability perspective.
Neither do i see what a person's reputation of character has to do with an incident that resulted in that persons death at that particular period of time.. and yet somehow the media has seen fit to drag Sheppard's 'sordid' reputation through the mud in an ongoing narration of the incident, as if it somehow has relevance...
It's still up in the air, as to whether Sheppard indeed had a hold of the wheel - but he certainly didn't have control of the gas or brake - Bryant did. I assume that Bryant had control of his brain also, whether flight or fight came into play, or not.
I've seen the youtube videos also - while grainy .. they show that Bryant isn't quite the angel in this that his PR firm Navigator would like to make him out to be.
Bryant needs to pay a penalty for his actions, and i strongly suspect he will - it took two to cause this incident, and he's not quite as teflon-coated in his actions as some of you seem to think he is.
Time will tell. | |
|
| Michael Bryant and Darcy Sheppard
Posted: 10/26/2009 12:40:37 PM | Oh Please. He wasn't given a breathalyzer because there was no reason to. No smell of alcohol, no evidence that any was consumed at either establishment he went to that evening as the receipts proved.
First appearances are rarely done with the accused present in any matter. No special rights were given.
He was charged and released on his own recognizance. Again, not unusual.
The bottom line is a drunk twit on a bike took on a car and lost. From everything I've read it is likely Bryant will be acquitted and rightly so. It was self defence plain and simple. I can guarantee I would have done the same bloody thing! | |
|
| Michael Bryant and Darcy Sheppard
Posted: 11/4/2009 6:24:02 AM | http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/how-to-defend-michael-bryant/article1346202/
Before a trial can take place at all, however, Mr. Peck must first assess whether there is a “reasonable prospect” of convicting Mr. Bryant based on the evidence. Since Mr. Bryant can testify without fear of contradiction from Mr. Sheppard, Mr. Peck may well see little chance of a conviction.
Should the case pass that hurdle, Mr. Bryant will have the choice of being tried by a judge or jury. Defence counsel are traditionally wary of juries in cases where the victims may evoke particular sympathy. On the other hand, Mr. Bryant might have an emotive edge, with his account of being set upon while driving home from a quiet dinner with his wife to celebrate their anniversary.
I read the above blurb from the URL provided... I will admit that I have not been paying close attention to all the different things occuring in this case, overall, I think the entire thing has turned into a sad joke with charging Bryant. But having read that excerpt, I'm now of the impression that there might not be a trial at all... that the charges may be dropped.
Hopefully someone that has been paying attention and is savvy of this issue can enlighten me... | |
|
| Michael Bryant and Darcy Sheppard
Posted: 11/4/2009 5:27:34 PM | The Prosecutor vetting for reasonable prospect is nothing unusual. They do it everyday in traffic court. Anytime there is an accident, your statement is compelled by statute. Witnesses differ. All that's left is physical evidence. If the Prosecutor doesn't feel that he has a reasonable prospect of conviction on the charges as laid, he can either seek to amend, re-lay charges, or withdraw charges.
Criminal court is funny. It gets adjourned and adjourned until all evidence is in and then you see where you stand. This is an offence where they not only need to prove the act itself, but the intent. That's an awfully high threshold to prove and it must be beyond a reasonable doubt. | |
|
Home
login 
