Charge Dropped Against Michael Bryant Part 2

101 posts / 0 new
Last post
Maysie Maysie's picture
Charge Dropped Against Michael Bryant Part 2
Issues Pages: 
Caissa

Stockholm and Unionist are proving dispassionate voices of reason in this thread.  Many on Babble semed to have convicted Bryant less than 24 hours after the incident took place. This death was incredibly tragic. I am glad we don't have jury by discussion board in Canada.

George Victor

Caissa wrote:

Stockholm and Unionist are proving dispassionate voices of reason in this thread.  Many on Babble semed to have convicted Bryant less than 24 hours after the incident took place. This death was incredibly tragic. I am glad we don't have jury by discussion board in Canada.

The guillotine is too handy to the rabble, isn't it.  What if one were to say that they detest everything Bryant stands for, having in mind all the tens of thousands of people in this province who are unable to afford a lawyer,  the existence of a legal system that is itself unfair and that creates untold misery by being unavailable? But there he is, in the window of another car earlier that day, and several people come forward out of nowhere and describe the manic actions of someone whose blood contained an inordinate amount of alcohol. 

Yep, one can see how things came to be, back in 1793.

 

 

 

Caissa

Both Bread & Roses and EnMasse are having interesting discussions on this topic. Worth taking a peek if one is so inclined.

Slumberjack

Ouch George.  Laughing

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I want the rule of law restored in Canada.  This Special Prosecutor system because it uses lawyers with ties to political parties brings the administration of justice into disrepute. 

And yes Stockholm it is very well accepted that there are more federal cons than federal libs in the BC Liberal inner circle.  That does not nullify the very real ties between many of the BC Liberals and their Ontario counterparts.   I have met Mr. Peck in his professional capacity and he seemed like a fine fellow but it is his donations to the party that should have made him ineligible to be the judge in this matter.

And that is the second part of this equation. We now have a system where rich politicians (not Glen Clark) get their cases heard behind closed doors by someone other than a judge.  The Special Prosecutor does not administer oaths and the testimony does not get cross examined in open court.  we now have a two tiered system and that IMO is fundamentally wrong.  

Whether Bryant is guilty or not is something we have a court system to determine instead we use an out of the light, closed door process. 

ebodyknows ebodyknows's picture

What's interesting at bread and roses?  It seems to be basically the same chatter that's everywhere. 

I see a car rolling forward after the bike had passed the driver.  I'd potentially buy that the driver is clued out didn't notice and hit the brakes once he did but I'm having plenty of trouble believing clutch issues account for the subsequent threat/bump and the comparatively high speed ramming which follows.  I've driven cars with a clutch and I've often seen motorists threaten cyclists who are in front of them by reeving their engines and bursting forward.  I do not reasonably doubt that it is at the very least an aggravated assault that we see in the video.

madmax

Bryant got special treatment.

 

jrootham

Skdadl at BnR has laid out the civil liberties argument for dropping the charges.

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

...while ignoring the special treatment that Bryant and his expensive PR firm received.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Like OJ I hope this family sues for wrongful death.  At least then we could get some of the facts without it going through the Special Prosecutor spin filter.

The vilification of the victim in this case is so obnoxious it is heart wrenching. I get that he dressed provocatively (like a radical native) so he deserved the treatment this rich white man dolled out for his insolence. If rich people can't drive their BM'ers without having to deal with poor people yelling at them what do we have left of our society.  

Sineed

At his press conference, Bryant was point-blank asked why he didn't take his foot off the accelerator.  He said, "I regret leaving the house that day.  I regret..."(etc etc...he went on for a couple of minutes about his regret and existential angst, how this event changed his life, blah blah, but no answering of the question). My husband (a former courier - we know people who knew Al Sheppard) said at the radio, "Answer the fucking question!!"  But Bryant won't answer it, because he doesn't have to, and never will.

His failure to take his foot off the accelerator should have had more consequences for him than lingering regret, and likely would have for a regular civilian in the same circumstance.  

But yeah Daniel; Al Sheppard was not exactly a poster child for victims everywhere.  What he would say to women motorists that crossed him was especially unimpressive.

aka Mycroft

For Michael Bryant, an extraordinary kind of justice

Quote:
Everyone agreed the charges were appropriate when they were laid, but that now, after all that had been learned since, withdrawing them was also the right thing.

Here's what usually happens: the Crown gets the case if not the night before at best a couple of weeks before, has a quick read, and it goes to a preliminary hearing. There, the evidence is called, although not nearly as thoroughly as it was here, and the Crown might conclude, correctly, that it's a weak case, but odds are he'd let it go to trial. At trial, the average guy probably would be acquitted.

Mr. Bryant said at a press conference later Tuesday that, "Nobody is above the law. But no one's below the law, either."

He didn't add that some folks get the old beater version, and some the Saab: T'was ever thus.

 

Fidel

Bryant didn't take his foot off the gas pedal until Sheppard lay dying because ___________?

I think Bryant feared being caught far more than anything else. And he was caught red-handed. It's all there on video tape and eye witness testimonies.

And Bryant knew for years that speed is an advantage. [url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/article967360.ece]"I always try to end a bout before the third round,"[/url] Was Bryant afraid of a punch in the nose? Somehow I don't think so.

Bryant the speeding stunt driver v an inebriated Sheppard with a dulled sense of reality.

The result was Michael "killer" Bryant by KO. Speed kills. Bryant knows that, too.

Life, the unive...

I am stunned that the critical facaulties of so many seem to go out the window when some rich white dude is involved.  Watch the video.  You don't need the captioned one.  Bryant is stopped well back from the corner.  Perhaps Sheppard honestly believed he was stopped waiting for someone, but we see him come around the car and fill in the space (with plenty of room) between the Bryant car and the corner.  Bryant then stops short.  He then pulls ahead right up to and perhaps touching the bike (that is not clear).  Given the way the car jumps a significant amount of fuel is being run through the engine.  Bryant than stops.  A few split seconds later the car jumps forward again and Sheppard is knocked forcefully to the ground.  Again knowing something about engines there has to be a fair amount of fuel being pushed through the carburetor, by a heavy depression of the gas pedal to get that kind of jump from a vehicle, especially if it is a manual transmission.  So on the face of it, Bryant's story, as told to us by Peck of a stall does not add up to the evidence on the video, because he does not mention 2 stalls.  As well starting your car in that quick succession from not one, but two stalls is a feat worthy of a mafia gettaway driver or James Bond, not your average, run of the mills rich guy Saab driver.

We then see Bryant's car from a different camera and angle.  It is running after having struck Sheppard.  So no stall.  The vehicle backs us quickly, swerves around the prone person and begins to take off.  At this point you can see the hazy outline of a figure moving quickly towards the car.  Up until this point Bryant has been in complete control of everything and the excuse of fear is simply unbelievable as nothing, except him striking a cyclist has occurred.  After this moment Bryant could claim fear, but so too could Sheppard as he likely did not expect to have the car continue to drive away and swerve into the opposite lane.  Anyone who has driven an open tractor knows that even 30km can feel pretty fast if you are close to the road.

The so-called 'other incidents' are a complete and deliberate red-herring.  Sheppard was a bike courier.  He was in traffic more than most drivers and cyclists.  We know that drivers tend to be very dismissive of cyclists, coming up fast behind them, revving their engines at them, cutting them off, throwing open their doors and so on.  I say this as a rural resident with no horse in the cyclist/driver race, but I have seen it often enough while visiting urban centres to believe it is pretty darn common. In fact I have experienced similar behaviour as a pedestrian in places like Toronto from drivers feeling they need not treat me or other walkers with respect or the courtesy of following the rules of the road.   And sure some cyclists and pedestrians are bicycle equivalents of those drivers.  Anyway, the liklihood that Sheppard encountered other jackass drivers and was over-sensitive to their actions does not negate what happened between Bryant and him.

So as a bare minimum Bryant should have been charged by the Crown with careless driving endangering life (a lesser charge than death), which was well within their purview.  Instead he was sprung scott-free with no responsibility for any of his actions at all.  We have gotten to the point were we understand the past history, or state of drunkeness is no excuse for sexual assaults, but we have allowed the same techniques to over-ride justice for a well-connected dude that got special protection and priveledges no one else did.  Bryant's story was accepted as factual, without even basic consideration of whether it added up.  That is a priveledge few of us will ever get.

Fidel

Very good description of the events. Life, the univ...

It was just another pugilistic encounter for Bryant. In Bryant's overly competitive mind, it was his vicious and calculated "body shots" that KO'd Sheppard. Go get 'em, killer.

remind remind's picture

Lard Tunderin Jeezus wrote:
...while ignoring the special treatment that Bryant and his expensive PR firm received.

Concur....

There is a growing body of evidence that the divide between white collar blue collar is expanding.....

Fidel

Why did Bryant not take his foot off the accelerator pedal? After Bryant stuttered and stammered his way through and avoided answering the question altogether, I think we know something as to the why with this quote:

Quote:
[url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/article967360.ece]"It's humiliating to lose at boxing. You are starkly up there, alone. It's a sport that teaches humility."[/url] Michael Bryant on fear of defeat

Bryant kept the pedal to the metal because _______________? He was afraid of being humiliated.

 Bryant is not only a coward and murderer, he is a well connected coward and murderer.

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

aka Mycroft wrote:

For Michael Bryant, an extraordinary kind of justice

Quote:
Everyone agreed the charges were appropriate when they were laid, but that now, after all that had been learned since, withdrawing them was also the right thing.

Here's what usually happens: the Crown gets the case if not the night before at best a couple of weeks before, has a quick read, and it goes to a preliminary hearing. There, the evidence is called, although not nearly as thoroughly as it was here, and the Crown might conclude, correctly, that it's a weak case, but odds are he'd let it go to trial. At trial, the average guy probably would be acquitted.

Mr. Bryant said at a press conference later Tuesday that, "Nobody is above the law. But no one's below the law, either."

He didn't add that some folks get the old beater version, and some the Saab: T'was ever thus.

 

I think at trial, he would have been acquitted. But as has already been stated in NOW, with a trial, justice would have been seen to be done, As it stands, all that is seen is a two-tier justice system where those of class, privilege, and status merit preferential treatment.

Tommy_Paine

 

I think you could search the babble archives, and not come up short on ill considered posts I've made, errors in fact I've made, bloviation when I've been upset, and the occaisional needle at someone just because... the opportunity was there.  

 

And, you could paint a pretty awful picture of me.

 

As I could of anyone else here.  

 

Life's like that.  We've all had our good moments, and our bad.  But we balance it out.   Except for Allan Sheppard and Micheal Bryant.  Here, were all of Sheppards worst moments in life trotted out, against a barrage of Bryant's best.   

 

All which should have been beside the point, the point being the 28 seconds that didn't change Bryant's life one iota, but ended Sheppards.

From the outset, I maintained that I thought it impossible that this event could happen with either one of the parties being blameless.   

Shepard paid dearly for his part.

Bryant is laughing at us, over drinks with Peck, and Robin Sears, with reporters from CBC and the Toronto Star under the table doing what they do best.

 

That whole machine that dragged a dead man through the mud is a machine that can be turned against you, or someone close to you.

 

I have two daughters in Toronto, shortly to be joined by yet another, for college.  My eldest rides a bike.  She's one of those people I can say with confidence that you'd like her.  She's funny.  She's creative and energetic.  She's a natural with kids. And she keeps up on current affairs and it's only a matter of time before she's even more community involved in Toronto, her adopted home.

But if she gets run over by a drug crazed, speeding and drunk Rahim Jaffer, I know Navigator or someone like them will get it in the Toronto Star that she's partial to low cut tops.  That she's been known to enjoy a drink or three at times.  That she's been known, when she stubs her toe or bangs her head to get angry.

She has anger issues, is what they'd say.  Drunken slut, is what they'd say.

 

Alan Sheppard was not Ghandi, that much is a fact. 

 

But then, neither was Ghandi.

 

No reasonable chance for a conviction in a province that never has a problem getting a conviction even against innocent people.

And, Bryant is hardly innocent.  

 

I am further puzzled why anyone would approach this case in isolation that it is some kind of "one of"  when clearly it is not.   Some have said that, well, these things happen all the time.  Charges are dropped, technicalities here and there. 

 

The law is capricious.

 

But it has so far-- and when I say so far, pick your time.  Living memory, last ten years, last twenty, back to the 1700's--- it has so far been rather consistently capricious along class lines, or racist lines or sexist lines.  

Even Ontario Lottery and Gaming would be suspicious about this kind of "luck" the aristoes have in our courts.

 

But hey.

Don't forget to question the power politely.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Summer

Frustrated Mess wrote:

I think at trial, he would have been acquitted. But as has already been stated in NOW, with a trial, justice would have been seen to be done, As it stands, all that is seen is a two-tier justice system where those of class, privilege, and status merit preferential treatment.

This is not the way the legal system works.  Cases settle out of court all the time.  If the Crown looks at all the evidence and decides it can't win the case, it would be irresponsible to have a trial.  Litigation takes a lot of time and resources.  We don't try a public figure just to make the rest of the public feel better about the system if you know there isn't enough evidence to uphold the charges. Are you suggesting that it is better that justice "be seen to be done" than that it actually be done?

Fidel

Quote:
Alan Sheppard was not Ghandi, that much is a fact.

Allan Sheppard never murdered anyone either.

Michael "killer" Bryant would have been insulated from the consequences by British colonial law for murdering an Indian then as sure as the Bay Street setup in Toronto has protected him from the law today. Michael Bryant is an extraordinarily well connected murdering coward.

To hell with Bryant and the whole corrupt system. I wouldn't spit on him if he was on fire, and it's likely he would feel the same about any of us ordinary working class slobs. I get the strong impression that Bryant would not stop his car for a pedestrian in the road if he felt it would end in humiliation for him. Bryant's biggest fear is knowing that he and other well connected psychotics like him are no better than the rest of us when it comes down to it.

Tommy_Paine

We don't try a public figure just to make the rest of the public feel better about the system if you know there isn't enough evidence to uphold the charges.

 

Yes we do. 

 

Guy Paul Morin was a public figure by the time his second show trial took place.

 

Oh, but I do go on.   I mean, who can argue with such stellar evidence presented by jail house informants?

 

 

mahmud

The ruling elite know well. People will bark, protest, howl, let out some steam and the issue will die out. Give them "freedom of  speech" in return for our freedom of action. They will believe that they live in a democracy.

Tommy_Paine

 

Which reminds me.

 

When we read over cases of wrongfull conviction, one of the things that seem to come out is that Crown's seem to be motivated not by truth or justice or protecting the public, but an over ridding urg to carve another notch in the ol' conviction belt.   Particularly in the second Guy Paul Morin trial.  It's difficult not to conclude that the Crown, for reasons of pure ego, was willing to put an innocent man in jail for a hienous crime.

 

And, by the way, let a murderer of children roam at large.

And then we sometimes run across wee articles burried in the paper where a judge will haul a Crown over the carpet for hiding exculpatory evidence.   No obstruction of justice and jail time, mind you.  Funny that.

 

And now, we are expected to believe in cases like Bryant or Jaffer, that prosecutors all of a sudden dust off high minded ideals like truth and justice?

 

Must be some dust cloth.

Steve N

Summer wrote:

This is not the way the legal system works.  Cases settle out of court all the time.  If the Crown looks at all the evidence and decides it can't win the case, it would be irresponsible to have a trial.  Litigation takes a lot of time and resources.  We don't try a public figure just to make the rest of the public feel better about the system if you know there isn't enough evidence to uphold the charges. Are you suggesting that it is better that justice "be seen to be done" than that it actually be done?

No, civil cases settle out of court all the time. Criminal cases don't "settle out of court". You're comparing apples to orangutangs.

Many people are charged with criminal offences, go to trial and are found not guilty. This happens all the time too. What is the threshold for charges being dropped and is that threshold applied evenly? I can't even find any statistics with google on the number of charges dropped in Ontario each year. If we're going to say that Bryant's charges being dropped is "normal", lets find out exactly how normal it is first.

Tommy_Paine wrote:
And now, we are expected to believe in cases like Bryant or Jaffer, that prosecutors all of a sudden dust off high minded ideals like truth and justice?

 

Peck isn't a prosecutor though, he's a defence attorney from another province. He will go back to BC and be forgotten, and never have to answer to anyone. Meanwhile the Attorney General's office can wash their hands of the matter and say they weren't involved. And we are left with a decision based on the opinion of one man whom we will never see again.

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

Summer wrote:

Frustrated Mess wrote:

I think at trial, he would have been acquitted. But as has already been stated in NOW, with a trial, justice would have been seen to be done, As it stands, all that is seen is a two-tier justice system where those of class, privilege, and status merit preferential treatment.

This is not the way the legal system works.  Cases settle out of court all the time.  If the Crown looks at all the evidence and decides it can't win the case, it would be irresponsible to have a trial.  Litigation takes a lot of time and resources.  We don't try a public figure just to make the rest of the public feel better about the system if you know there isn't enough evidence to uphold the charges. Are you suggesting that it is better that justice "be seen to be done" than that it actually be done?

Not in a case that involves conflict, violence, and death. You name me a precedent that doesn't involve a rich, white, connected guy. Go ahead. Dig one up. I'll come back to check your your list.

ETA: This is such a big lie that this happens all the time and that's what really pisses me off. Yes, deals are made all the time or charges are dropped in routine traffic acidents, sometimes more serious cases. But never, except in high profile cases involving the rich, the white, and the connected are charges dropped without a trial involving violence and death. Never. It is just such bullshit to argue otherwise. And that is why justice is not done. Not seen to be done. Not done at all as a completely different set of criterion are used when the accused is rich, white, and connected beginning with the bail hearing and, I bet, the holding cell.

Stockholm

If you are really angry about the justice system being so "soft" in this case - you can always join the Conservative Party - I hear that are big on being "tough on crime" and removing discretion from judges and making it harder for anyone to plea bargain and having stiffer mandatory minimum sentences for everything. If you want the government to pass a law making it illegal for crowns to ever drop charges and demanding that all cases where there is the remotest possibility of a hypethetical of a conviction should be pursued to the nth degree - regardless of cost - then Stephen Harper is your man!! I'm sure the Tories would be very open to your ideas about making the justice system so much tougher.

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

What an idiot. On so many counts. The Cons are not at all interested on being "tough on crime" - they are interested in enriching their subcontractor supporters who build prisons while using dropping crime rates as a wedge. And this is not a case of some street youth, preferably non-white, who the Cons and people like you would want to make an example of for some petty crime. And this is not a plea bargain. This is a get out of jail free card. And, meanwhile, in your pathetic effort to not deal with an substantive issue while trying to twist the conversation into something unrelated and stupid, you entirely ignored the point. So, you name a case not involving a rich, white, connected guy that began with violence and ended with a death where all charges--every single charge ... even any traffic violation--was dropped without any need to go to trial. Name one. Go ahead. Or, in the words of a rich, white, and connected woman to whom I'm sure you share much sympathy, shut the fuck up.

Stockholm

Every day there are incidents that occur where charges are not laid and when it doesn't involve someone famous we don't hear about it. Its ridiculous to expect anyone to provide a list of cases of people no one has ever heard of NOT being charged with a crime. There are certainly cases all the time where accidents happen or where someone kills someone else and it is clearly in elf defence and no charges are laid.

But the reality is that the mandate of the crown is to pursue a case whenever there is a "reasonable" chance of a conviction. Its pretty obvious in this case that the chances of a conviction would have been NIL. You had conflicting witness accounts, forensic evidence etc..., seemingless endless damning evidence that the dead man was mentally unstable and had physically assaulted dozens of people in similar situations.

One thing that is unique in this case is that unlike the Jaffer case where charges were mysteriously dropped against a VISIBLE MINORITY MAN (how the hell could that have happened???) and where there was no explanation - in this case the crown took the highly unusual step of giving a very detailed explanation of all the reasons why this case had to be dropped - and I notice that virtually every legal expert interviewed - including many very progressive lawyers - have unanimously agreed that there was ZERO chance of a conviction in this case and that the crown was right to drop the charges.

I acknowledge that if this happened on a country road with no witnesses and the person driving the car had been a 20 year old Jamaican guy with dreadlocks and the person on the bike who was killed was an elderly nun - it is much less likely that the charges would have been dropped. But I think that anyone the least bit credible driving the car would have either had the charges dropped or never been charged in the first place. In fact, if Bryant's wife had been driving instead of him, I think charges might never have been laid at all - since the police tend to give women the benefit of the doubt much more than they do men.

 

dandmb50 dandmb50's picture

I watched the live press conference of Bryant and I think he must be watching a lot of American TV and I thought he was a lawyer, but he did say in his statement that he was "indicted" and I didn't realize that was a Candian law term. Am I wrong?

Would this have solved the problem?

NYC protected bike lanes

 

Daniel ... Toronto

[url=http://bit.ly/akgL8w]My take on biking in Toronto[/url]

dandmb50 dandmb50's picture

Now I see why the Star/Globe do not allow comments on this story, but I don't get it with the Star, they are read before they are posted and moderated.
Do you think it has anything to do with the fact that Bryant is a Liberal? It's funny that the media in Toronto have not mentioned that he was a former Liberal cabinet minister, however they did say he was a cabinet minister. Why is the Liberal part left out?
I don't know all the facts but it sure does seem fishy to me and I'm sure this is not the end of it. After all O.J. Simpson was acquitted too, and look what happened there. There is too much "unknown" about this case and it will be interesting to see what comes out.
Everyone just take a deep breath and let's see what happens, and to hold Sheppard up for bikers rights is not the right direction to go.

nice bike

Daniel ... Toronto
[url=http://bit.ly/akgL8w] My take on bikes in the big city[/url]

 

Scott Piatkowski Scott Piatkowski's picture

Indicted is very much a Canadian term. In fact, what the Americans call felonies and misdeamors, we call indictable offenses and summary conviction offenses.

dandmb50 dandmb50's picture

So does this open up a whole new can of worms for the "electric bikes" since someone pointed out that cyclists are not bound by the drinking laws. Impaired ONLY applies to motor vehicles? I really don't believe that but I may be wrong.

Does this mean that someone on an electric bike cannot be charged if they are drinking and driving?

electric bikes

These new electric bikes are everywhere and it's only a matter of time before they become a problem. As I understand it they don't need a license (for the bike or the driver) nor do they need insurance. So what happens if they run into another car and cause damage?

 

Daniel .. Toronto

[url=http://bit.ly/Daniel2010]Visit my OPERA BLOG click here < ----[/url]

 

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

Stockholm wrote:

Every day there are incidents that occur where charges are not laid and when it doesn't involve someone famous we don't hear about it.

So then - if no one hears about these things, how are you aware of their existence, oh clairvoyant one?

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I think he is channeling the Ontario Liberal party hive mind.  It sees all.

So Stockholm you think that it is a good thing for politically active lawyers (i.e. donating unlike the majority of Canadian ) to be investigating politicians of the same political stripe in a closed door system.  I don't know what the outcome of this should have been but the process is deeply flawed. Vancouver Special used to refer to an oversized box of a house built in the 70's and 80's now it has become a legal term for insider track.

The same process was used to exonerate our Solicitor General when his campaign team was engaged in dirty tricks.  His excuse was it was someone else's job to know what was happening on his election campaign team.  Like many decent ideas this one has been corrupted by the Liberals to become just another a sweet deal for their connected friends.

writer writer's picture

Quote:
...The trouble here is that there appeared to be no adversaries. Bryant’s lawyers worked along with the Crown to turn over evidence and to shape the case before any trial could be held. That’s not adversarial and it’s a big part of why this result seems so skewed. The public has confidence when they see two sides pitted against each other but when everybody appears to be on the same side nepotic whispers abound and perception once again becomes reality.

This is one of those cases where everybody loses. We’d all like to think that we know how we’d react in extreme circumstances but until it happens to you, you really have no idea. Panic and fear can lead us to make some pretty stupid mistakes and I’m sure that if was me that I would have bolted out of there, too. I have no desire to see Bryant behind bars but I do have a desire to have a justice system that has integrity and is respected by the populace at large.

And Justice For All…
The Reel… a blog by Marshall Golden

madmax

Funny to see Stock... Defending the Stunter/CarelessDriving/DangerousDriving/Leaving the scene of an accident clown erm, crown.

Fact is just over 20 years ago a friend of mine also bumped into a driver at an intersection. He didn't try to leave the scene of the accident. Not before the guy got out of his car and started to threaten him and he didn't leave afterwards either. Not even when the person laid a beating on him for scratching his car.  Regardless the police show up and charged him with stop and start/failure to safety. 

Which, is exactly what Bryant did, likely because he had a drink or two or because he was careless. But he hit the cyclist. 

Its ok in Stocks mind to hit people and drive away.   Especially when its the person who created some of the most draconian and  unfair set of stunting laws the Province has ever seen.   Laws that take your car away even if you are innocent and proven innocent. The cyclist would be alive today if Bryant hadn't tried to leave the scene, and the cyclists reaction cost him his life.  It appears he was trying to take the keys out of the car so it wouldn't leave.  Others would smile and wave as the car left the scene of an accident. This is a tragedy. One in which Bryant accepts no responsibility and one in which ... hey was he tested for alcolhol immediately at the scene?

Sorry, Bryant is an elistist.  He got a little help from his friends in law and in the old boxing club to boot. Nice network.

The only thing that would have made this story shocking is if Bryant received any kind of charge and accepted his role in an accident.

 

False regret from someone full of shit means nothing to me.

 

 

 

 

Fidel

Stockholm wrote:
If you are really angry about the justice system being so "soft" in this case - you can always join the Conservative Party

I don't believe anyone here desires to see poor Michael Bryant hanged and gutted. I think there would have been some public outrage with a lesser conviction of manslaughter and reduced sentence for good behaviour or whatever the case might have been.

But was Allan Sheppard's life really worth nothing when it came to poor, misunderstood Michael Bryant whose road rage got the better of him that day?

Tommy_Paine

Stockholm wrote:

If you are really angry about the justice system being so "soft" in this case - you can always join the Conservative Party - I hear that are big on being "tough on crime" and removing discretion from judges and making it harder for anyone to plea bargain and having stiffer mandatory minimum sentences for everything. If you want the government to pass a law making it illegal for crowns to ever drop charges and demanding that all cases where there is the remotest possibility of a hypethetical of a conviction should be pursued to the nth degree - regardless of cost - then Stephen Harper is your man!! I'm sure the Tories would be very open to your ideas about making the justice system so much tougher.

 

Maybe, while you are in Oz, you can get a brain for that strawman.

Stockholm

Fidel wrote:

I don't believe anyone here desires to see poor Michael Bryant hanged and gutted.

Isn't that funny, I was under the impression that that was precisely what many people here desire!!

Tommy_Paine

 

I suspect a few do.    I didn't before.

 

In fact, when this story broke I pointed out here that people who kill other people with cars (but not other mechanical equipment-- another mystery of our legal system that is unfathomable to this mind) generally get sentences that the general public finds inadequate.  Most of them, even when convicted, don't even get jail.

All I would have liked to have seen is Bryant get the same treatment as anyone else.  Adequate or inadequate as it may be.

 

And, clearly, clearly, clearly, this didn't happen.  Bryant got very favorable treatment, and he is, in FACT, a person above the law.

 

What gets lost in all this by most is that the idea that there is special treatment for Bryant eclipses what happened to Allan Sheppard. 

 

Allan Sheppard's life was valued at zero.

 

There's a lot of that going around.

 

 

 

 

Fidel

Here's something along the lines of what conservatives in the US might say. And there goes Michael Bryant, free to live out the rest of his life in comfort in freedom. Meanwhile, all Allan Sheppard's family and friends have are his memories. Justice has been denied. Or something like that.

All I'm saying is that even a feeble attempt to punish Bryant for taking a human life would have been acceptable to the public. Apparently the justice system is not concerned with sending a message to the public that taking the life of another is subject to certain minimal consequences. At least not in this case.

There are two sets of laws. One set of laws applies to the elite in our society, and another for everyone else. That's how I,  as an ordinary citizen without "pull" and who has never used my car as a weapon against another living thing let alone a human being, am able to interpret this legal hand-waving in favour of Michael "It's good to be connected" Bryant.

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

Lard Tunderin Jeezus wrote:

Stockholm wrote:

Every day there are incidents that occur where charges are not laid and when it doesn't involve someone famous we don't hear about it.

So then - if no one hears about these things, how are you aware of their existence, oh clairvoyant one?

Yep. Everyday people get into altercations that escalate into violence leaving someone dead on the sidewalk and charges aren't laid. We just don't hear about them. As common as dandelions in spring, they are. Yep. Just had one happen outside. Scraped up the dead guy, brushed off the other guy, and sent him on his way. Ooops! There goes yet another ...

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

The initial events of the altercation should have been enough for a trial.  Plain and simple.  It's careless driving at best.

 

Some of the defenders of Bryant show their sycophantic tendencies.

Steve N

The Peck Brief - Advocate for the Defence Part 1

Quote:

Most cases end with the ruling of a judge or jury but this case ended with the ruling of a single criminal defence lawyer acting as an independent prosecutor.

Peck released an eleven page brief analyzing some of the evidence and justifying his decision to drop the charges without a preliminary hearing of the evidence. His brief answered few questions but also raised many more.

We have separated Peck's brief into the two parts. Part one focuses on the initial incident where Bryant's vehicle rammed into Sheppard. Part two will begin where Sheppard grabbed on to the vehicle.

 

 

We are all Darcy Allan Sheppard

Quote:
I was stunned to read witness accounts from those who had previous dealings with Darcy Allan Sheppard and with cyclists in general. It took so little to terrify them. So afraid of people in our society that act differently, even if that difference is only riding a bicycle. They spoke of their terror, though none of any physical harm they suffered. Very curious. When I see someone acting in a manner that is different than the expected, whether driving or cycling, I simply turn away or wait for the situation to play out. If warranted, I try getting them help. Darcy Allan Sheppard was turned into a monster. So to have I too in part. At least twice now after being hit by a hit-and-run drivers, the police were told by the drivers that I pulled a gun. That is why the drivers ran from the scene, turning a minor collision into a very serious matter. What I pulled out was a cell phone to call police with. How come there are so many irrational people on the road?

Unionist

Quote:
At least twice now after being hit by a hit-and-run drivers, the police were told by the drivers that I pulled a gun.

If the anonymous author of this had said "exactly twice", I would have found it hard to believe.

When s/he says "at least twice", I just stopped reading. Have trouble counting?

 

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Rick Salutin: Darcy Sheppard's Life Wasn't Only Tragic

Quote:
What I found remarkable was the mix of a calm, pensive, fair-minded tone with a deep love and commitment to his son, mere days after his death. I wrote and apologized for getting it wrong. We began corresponding. He asked me to respect his privacy. Last Christmas Eve, we had dim sum at a Toronto restaurant where he and Darcy often went. He got a call on his cellphone, from his other son, David, in prison in Manitoba. His voice had that same, calm, paternal, accepting tone as the letter he sent me.

On Victoria Day, he was here again. He'd just learned that all charges against Michael Bryant would be dropped. He said he understood the special prosecutor's reasons. That doesn't mean he felt "the system worked," as many people have since said. Issues are still in doubt (Why did the Bryant car lurch forward, throwing Darcy onto the hood? Then, later, why didn't Mr. Bryant stop, even after Darcy fell off?) which might have been best dealt with in testimony and cross-examination. Sitting in court Tuesday, it was clear this was far more Michael Bryant turf, than Darcy Sheppard turf.

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

Unionist wrote:

When s/he says "at least twice", I just stopped reading. Have trouble counting?

He also said "So to have I too in part." ~blah~

Still, what you're saying is his lack of eloquence permits you to dismiss his point?

Unionist

No, LTJ - what I'm saying is that I believe she is exaggerating. As in, making things up.

 

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

So, if it only happened once, to a friend of his (I'm doubting a woman was assumed to be a gun-wielding threat), it's not worthy of consideration?

I'm thinking the main point certainly is - most of us are more likely to receive the Darcy Allan Sheppard treatment than the kid gloves Bryant treatment if we are misfortunate enough to experience our legal system.

Pages

Topic locked