Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: Become a Podcaster | Find a Show
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2012 the authors
Syndicate
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.
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.
Both Bread & Roses and EnMasse are having interesting discussions on this topic. Worth taking a peek if one is so inclined.
Ouch George.
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.
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.
Bryant got special treatment.
Skdadl at BnR has laid out the civil liberties argument for dropping the charges.
...while ignoring the special treatment that Bryant and his expensive PR firm received.
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.
Daniel ... Toronto
My take on bikes in the big city
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.
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.
For Michael Bryant, an extraordinary kind of justice
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.
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. "I always try to end a bout before the third round," 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.
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.
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.
Concur....
There is a growing body of evidence that the divide between white collar blue collar is expanding.....
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:
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.
For Michael Bryant, an extraordinary kind of justice
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Daniel ... Toronto
My take on biking in Toronto
Indicted is very much a Canadian term. In fact, what the Americans call felonies and misdeamors, we call indictable offenses and summary conviction offenses.
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?
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
Visit my OPERA BLOG click here < ----
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?
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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!!
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.
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.
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 ...
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.
The Peck Brief - Advocate for the Defence Part 1
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
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?
Rick Salutin: Darcy Sheppard's Life Wasn't Only Tragic
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.
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?
No, LTJ - what I'm saying is that I believe she is exaggerating. As in, making things up.
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.
I agree that the legal/justice/police system can be very inequitable. Where I differ from many people posting here is in where i think the line of inequity is drawn.
I think that the system is often unfair to people at the very bottom, especially visible minorities, people with substance abuse issues, people who are inarticulate etc...and the real distinction is really between how people like that are treated compared to everyone else.
I don't think that Bryant got better treatment because he was the former AG of Ontario. I think he got the similar treatment what any man (or especially any woman) who was lower-middle class or higher and reasonably articulate would have received in case like this. If it had been a 28 year old Chinese-Canadian women who worked as an admin. assistant driving a convertible who got involved in the same altercation and was reasonably articulate and able to explain ewhat happened - I doubt very much if she would have even been charged in the first place,
Nonsense Stock
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aaf_QImUH_s
He hit the Cyclist ONCE, Then hits a 2nd time HARDER, all against a RED LIGHT. Then tries to leave the scene. His foot is NOT on the BRAKE but applied later. WHen you Drive a Standard your foot moves from the BRAKE to the GAS while the other is ENGAGED on the CLUTCH.
Why is he moving forward against a RED LIGHT?
THe third time Bryant Moves forward, in an attempt to leave the scene of an accident.
ANYONE ONE BE CHARGED and CONVICTED under this scenario.
That is before the escalation of events.
I am certain that this cyclist might not be the only person who would act out after being hit not once BUT TWICE and then the driver leaves the scene.
I expected nothing less.
DID ANYONE EXPECT BRYANT TO BE CONVICTED?
Did Bryant received a breathelyzer test?
Its hard to claim that driving around a corner to a safe place to park and then immediately dialling 911 is "fleeing the scene" of an accident.
LOL Try watching the video !
Your comment is absurd in the face of it.
Its hard to claim that driving around a corner to a safe place to park and then immediately dialling 911 is "fleeing the scene" of an accident.
This is why this is such a farce and shows how Bryant received special treatment. If in no other way that his story was believed without any real test of its merits. His story is not consistent with what can be seen in the video as I pointed out in the previous thread.
If you watch the video and listen to/read the eyewitness accounts from that night Bryant does try to flee the scene. He potentially bumps Sheppard once (it is not clear in the video) or at least revs right up very close to his rear wheel. Bryant then jumps forward again and this time whacks into Sheppard with a fair amount of force, knocking him to the ground. This action contradicts Bryant's account and it can be seen clearly without going into who was at fault for later events. It should have been an indication to Peck and the Crown that all was not what it seemed with Bryant's account. Yet, because of his station in life Bryant's account, despite clear contradictory evidence, was excepted whole cloth, a special perk few of the rest of us would be given.
After this intial 'altercation' Bryant then does try to flee the scene as he does not stop. He backs up, swerves around Sheppard and begins to move forward at some speed. So he is leaving the scene- it is clear even if he later claims not to. This is when Sheppard, the car and Bryant all become entangled and at this point it is unclear how or what caused this. We do know from the video evidence that Bryant crosses the line into the oncoming lane and that several objects strike Sheppard from the video and eyewitness accounts. It is not clear though whether Bryant or Sheppard is the author of this swerving, or whether it is the result of a tussle between the two. One contradictory bit is the claim that Sheppard was on the passenger side, which would have put him a long way from the steering wheel.
Later after Sheppard is left dying Bryant goes a short distance away and makes his call. Perhaps he thought better of it and finally did the right thing that night, but no matter how you slice, dice, or spin it, Bryant is seen leaving the scene of the orginal confrontation/accident. It is hard to prove that he is fleeing the second incident that resulted directly in Sheppards death though I suspect if this was a high profile person killed, not a high profile person doing the killing, that charge would have been made to stick.
There was plenty to charge him and go to trial on if the powers that be were even remotely interested in simple justice. That they did not says all we need to know about who our system works for, let alone the demonization of Sheppard that has occurred since.
I don't think that Bryant got better treatment because he was the former AG of Ontario. I think he got the similar treatment what any man (or especially any woman) who was lower-middle class or higher and reasonably articulate would have received in case like this. If it had been a 28 year old Chinese-Canadian women who worked as an admin. assistant driving a convertible who got involved in the same altercation and was reasonably articulate and able to explain ewhat happened - I doubt very much if she would have even been charged in the first place,
Well, we dissagree fundamentally. And that can lead-- particularly in this case where emotions run high-- to some snippy dialogue or worse.
I'd like to thank you for not going in that direction.
And I will say, with genuine sincerity that I hope no personal experience ever shatters what I know to be the above illusion; and that I wished we all lived in a province where what you said is true.
Here's to that day.
Cheers, Stockholm.
No, LTJ - what I'm saying is that I believe she is exaggerating. As in, making things up.
You mean in the way that Bryant and his defence team didn't. OF course cars routinely "lurch" 30 feet and naturally one panics when a bicycle is stopped in front of you.
Well Stock I guess you have your world and I have mine. Strange though, it seems they overlap in geography. I think this highlights my view that class in the end overrides all else. What Heed, Jaffer and Bryant have in common is not ethnicity it is class. They believe in and fight for the corporate system and that gives them their privilege. If any of those three were not part of the ruling class they would not have been treated with anything approaching the same deference. Of course if you happen to be non-white and poor then it is open season for the ruling class.
The Special Prosecutor idea was supposed to be about taking high profile cases involving politicians out of the hands of the regular prosecutors who work for the government and therefore have a potential for a conflict. No one said it was because the prosecutors were untrustworthy it was only that their monetary relationship with the government made for an appearance of a conflict.
On its face it is a good idea to have a Special Prosecutor so there can be not even a hint of bias or conflict. But when the politicians are appointing the Special Prosecutors it lends itself to abuse. In BC the government appointed a lawyer who donated to the party and Heed's campaign directly to investigate Heed, the Solicitor General. Like the prosecutors Peck in Bryant's case had a potential conflict and certainly the perception of one. Avoiding that very thing was the original reason for the Special Prosecutor so WTF.
http://www.theprovince.com/news/Vancouver+Kash+Heed+reinstated+solicitor...
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/05/05/bc-kahs-heed-...
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/01/28/bc-wao-wei-wu...
http://forums.ratedesi.com/showthread.php?t=288809
Appearance of Conflict is conflict of interest light, and corruption light. Like smoking light cigarettes will only give you cancer light.
You mean in the way that Bryant and his defence team didn't. OF course cars routinely "lurch" 30 feet and naturally one panics when a bicycle is stopped in front of you.
Anxiety? Anthropophobia? Cyclophobia? Is there a fear of lowly working class people?
No, LTJ - what I'm saying is that I believe she is exaggerating. As in, making things up.
You mean in the way that Bryant and his defence team didn't. OF course cars routinely "lurch" 30 feet and naturally one panics when a bicycle is stopped in front of you.
I don't recall ever suggesting I believed anything, let alone everything, in Peck's report. What I do recall saying, from (literally) day one, is that I'm not a big fan of mob justice. Anyone prepared to convict based on who someone is, rather than what they did, is very dangerous and regressive in my view. I've seen the results.
I also said, from the day the video came out, that I can't figure anything out from it. I'm still there. I'm glad that others have such a clear view and conclusion. I can't even begin to understand where that comes from.
I'm having a problem here these days. I'm listening to some fellow progressives who have convicted an individual PURELY because of who he is and who his victim was (the rest - drawing amateur armchair conclusions from blurry videos - is window-dressing); who are suggesting that the burning of a bank may not be such a horrendously regressive and reactionary stunt; and who think it's important to rally everyone to defend the "right" of a handful of people in another society to cover their faces and show them only to women (but don't seem to understand or care about the rights of the Québec nation to determine its own affairs). In some cases, these are the same fellow progressives who talk about how badly women are treated in Afghanistan - in other words, they are consistent in wanting to bestow their superior values everywhere.
There's a deep divide here, and I think it requires discussion as to how it arises and how it can be overcome - because it must be overcome.
In that particular case, I believe it has been your opinion all along that Afghanistan's civil war had nothing to do with Afghan women and their struggle for basic rights, and that the evil Soviets were to blame for everything from 1978 to 1992 with something of a blank spot on the CIA's record between 1992 and rise of the US-friendly Taliban government in Kabul from 1996 to 2001.
I never wanted for Bryant to be lined up against a cement wall at dawn without blindfold or cigarette. A punishing slap on the wrist might have satiated an angry mob though more than letting him off Scot-free.
I'm having a problem here these days. I'm listening to some fellow progressives who have convicted an individual PURELY because of who he is and who his victim was (the rest - drawing amateur armchair conclusions from blurry videos - is window-dressing); who are suggesting that the burning of a bank may not be such a horrendously regressive and reactionary stunt; and who think it's important to rally everyone to defend the "right" of a handful of people in another society to cover their faces and show them only to women (but don't seem to understand or care about the rights of the Québec nation to determine its own affairs). In some cases, these are the same fellow progressives who talk about how badly women are treated in Afghanistan - in other words, they are consistent in wanting to bestow their superior values everywhere.
There's a deep divide here, and I think it requires discussion as to how it arises and how it can be overcome - because it must be overcome.
That is patently unfair. You are mixing apples and oranges and misrepresenting what is being argued. In the Bryant case, the only case under discussion in this thread, no one here has convicted him of anything. Not even a speeding ticket. And that is the issue. Not that he is convicted, but that he has been spared the worry of ever facing a possible conviction of any offense. Not even a speeding ticket despite a man being dead directly resulting from his action. Bringing to light and examining questions and reconciling conflicting evidence is exactly the role of an open court process.
But, then again, here has been a man convicted here. The dead man. A case presented without cross-examination of the evidence, access to witnesses, or discovery, left the man who is dead portrayed as drunken and imbalanced character loose as an angry cyclist on Toronto streets in an environment labelled by local media as a "War on Cars". And he nor his survivors nor anyone else will ever have the chance to rebut those characterizations and present another snapshot of both himself and what happened that night.
I have asked for and not received any example of another case not involving a high profile suspect where a street altercation turned violent and then deadly and where all charges were dropped without a need for a trial. Probably because except in the case of absolutely clear self-defense it just doesn't happen.
And that is the issue. That due process was circumvented in a way it never would be for any lesser mortal. I find it disturbing I need to explain that to progressives and especially progressives well acquainted with class, privilege and the application of law.
I never wanted for Bryant to be lined up against a cement wall at dawn without blindfold or cigarette. A punishing slap on the wrist might have satiated an angry mob though more than letting him off Scot-free.
He didn't get off "scot-free". He lost his job, was publicly humiliated and I would conservatively estimate that between hiring a lawyer and private investigators and Navigator etc...this whole affairs has probably cost him several hundred thousand dollars.
He has his health.
Excellent. Why don't we just refer to the defendant as O.J. Bryant from now on?
By Scot-free I meant that his personal freedom wasn't curtailed in any way by a decision that came down heavily in his favour. As in, they seemed to have forgotten all about the other person in the altercation who lost his courier job and will not only never earn an income ever again, he won't enoy his pension either. Consider that.
There was NO court decision.
Who was handling the affair, the Ministry of Health? Because that would explain everything.
No, LTJ - what I'm saying is that I believe she is exaggerating. As in, making things up.
You mean in the way that Bryant and his defence team didn't. OF course cars routinely "lurch" 30 feet and naturally one panics when a bicycle is stopped in front of you.
I don't recall ever suggesting I believed anything, let alone everything, in Peck's report. What I do recall saying, from (literally) day one, is that I'm not a big fan of mob justice. Anyone prepared to convict based on who someone is, rather than what they did, is very dangerous and regressive in my view. I've seen the results.
I also said, from the day the video came out, that I can't figure anything out from it. I'm still there. I'm glad that others have such a clear view and conclusion. I can't even begin to understand where that comes from.
I'm having a problem here these days. I'm listening to some fellow progressives who have convicted an individual PURELY because of who he is and who his victim was (the rest - drawing amateur armchair conclusions from blurry videos - is window-dressing); who are suggesting that the burning of a bank may not be such a horrendously regressive and reactionary stunt; and who think it's important to rally everyone to defend the "right" of a handful of people in another society to cover their faces and show them only to women (but don't seem to understand or care about the rights of the Québec nation to determine its own affairs). In some cases, these are the same fellow progressives who talk about how badly women are treated in Afghanistan - in other words, they are consistent in wanting to bestow their superior values everywhere.
There's a deep divide here, and I think it requires discussion as to how it arises and how it can be overcome - because it must be overcome.
I'll stick to the Bryant case if you don't mind.
I am not a fan of mob justice either, yet that is precisely what has been unleashed by Bryant, Navigator, the press and the narrative presented by Peck's report against Darcy Sheppard and this is something that they are clearly guilty of and for this reason Sheppard should be defended.I have consistently argued that there are serious flaws in the narrative being presented by the defence, the manner in which this narrative has been constructed and the uncritical manner in which this narrative has been broadly accepted.(Not by you specifically). From the beginning of this incident that narrative was one that Darcy Sheppard was a violent and dangerous individual and Bryant was blameless in all his actions and had no other choice but to act as he did. What has alwasy been critical for me is that a counter narrative be presented and assumptions be challenged.
What is interesting about the Peck document( as expressed in one of the links above) is the questions that are left unasked. The acceptance of the defence narrative without any attempt to construct a counter narrative. It is as compelling in what it focuses on as what it ignores or rejects. What is compelling is that the focus on character directs our attention to a focus on action. By focusing on alleged previous incidents involving Sheppard directs the readers attention to the point in which Darcy confronts Bryant which conveniently skips up to the lead up to that confrontation. And it is the lead up to that confrontation that is critical.
What is clear is that prior to Darcy latching onto the vehicle, Bryant first bumped his bike then shot forward and knocked him over and then Bryant fled the seen of that original accident. It wouldn't really matter if Sheppard were a serial baby crusher at this point anyone who had been knocked over by a car would be justifiably angry. Yet Peck doesn't want to focus on that. The focus is so clearly on Sheppard and his later action that Bryant escapes scrutiny. The legitimacy of Bryant's actions seem to be defended on the basis of Sheppard's subsequent actions. All of this is highly problematic because within the original incident lies the possiblity of alternate outcomes and manners in which Bryant might have behaved differently. Bryant could have stopped his vehicle at the firwt contact with Sheppard's bike he could have stopped after he knocked him over. i don't understand how Bryant could be panicked before he knocked Darcy off his bike. Yet he chose not to. What is also missing in the scrutiny of this first encounter is the plausbility of the defence, the stall and lurch defence. I acknowledge i am not an expert on automobiles but I do drive now and again and I have had a vehicle stall and then started in gear and had it lurch forward. I have also witnessed vehicles lurch forward in similar circumstnces. That said I have to confess that I do not understand how a vehicle can lurch forward 30 feet, usually if you lurch you break quickly but maybe there is something that I'm missing.
So I have never convicted Bryant of anything. I am remain unconvinced by the explaination of his actions and I remain unconvinced by the justifications for his actions.
In terms of the responsibility of the left. I think it is always our responsibility to provide counter narratives and critically challenge offical versions. I am surprised when "evidence" and forensics provided by official sources is not questioned. We know from experience that forensics and "evidence" has been used to justify miscarriages of justice.
IN term of the outcome I am not surprised, I have very little faith in the criminal justice system.
In terms of the video it has always been clear to me that the Bryants car shoots forward and knocks Darcy off of his bike. I am as surprised as you are that you don't see what appears rather clear to me from the footage. What Peck's report does acknowledge is that this did occur.
I wonder if I would take justice inyo my own hands were I in the family of Darcy Shepard.
He was assassinated by a privileged asshole drunk on power.Vigilante justice is the only possibility of justice. The pain for his family must be unbearable.
I wonder, too, 500 Apples. But in other cases where there have been gross miscarriages of justice where you'd think there was more than enough reason for some people to take such action, rarely does it occurr.
I have to believe that when this kind of thing happens to your son, or daughter, the trauma puts you in a different place than what those looking in from a distance are in.
You know, I've known young guys like Darcy Allan Sheppard. And yeah, anger, substance abuse... and I've known them to eventually grow up, deal with the root causes of those symptoms and become good fathers, good citizens. Such a waste, such a murder of potential, and a society wide ability to write that potential off as having no value.
But we know-- if we did not know before-- where it is people stand.
And we have a nakedly Tory (in the classical sense) system that has sent signals to it's members that they can lie to convict the innocent with no consequence (Dr. Smith) or drive drunk and speeding with no consequence (Jaffer) and run a man down with no consequence (Bryant) and the system will do, or not do, whatever it takes to protect it's own.
So yes, 500 Apples, if one of mine gets run down by a drunken Jaffer or Bryant the next time he panics. I would imagine I would have a visit with them. And after having a visit with them, I'd be coming to see the prosecutors who gave them the green light before. And then maybe, if I was able to get down so far on the list, I'd be coming to see the good folks at Navigator, and the good journalists who also played a part in all this.
And no, I imagine I wouldn't be coming to play pinochle. And when I got done visiting, I wouldn't run or deny anything I did, either. What would be the point. Everything would already been taken from me.
But that's sitting here. I tend to think it's not where my head space would be if something that terrible did happen.
I hope I never know.
The idea that the economic loss is punishment enough for the professional class is a dubious assertion lacking evidential support in the first place, and a fairly classist philosophy in the second.
For those with a memory, let's turn our minds back to Conrad Black's attempted thievery of his employee's pensions. Those unfamiliar with the case might be shocked to learn that Conrad excersized his "get out of jail free" card here in Ontario. Whatever legal fees he may or may not have had to pay in his deffense, or political donations he had paid or did pay in that deffense (did I say donations? perhaps I meant bribes.... interchangable words) was-- for a time at least-- more than recouped because the attempted theft surely enhanced his resume for Hollenger investors who thought that Conrad's inability to understand the difference between what money was his and what was others wouldn't cross class boundries, but instead would work to their economic advantage.
Similarly, Bryant's ability to have the judicial system turn itself inside out to allow him to walk isn't going to do anything but enhance his resume. People will want that POWER, make no mistake. Though they might be wise, for reasons of potential liability and lower over all insurance rates, not to include a company car in the contract.
As far as the cost of his deffense, including the PR firm, we don't know if that wasn't pro bono in recognition of services past rendered. Or to be rendered.
And let's not forget that Bryant's primary deffense team was paid for by us, Chris Bently and Peck being on the provincial payroll.
Now, just to be sure, next time I am in Toronto, I will look into the faces of those panhandling on the streets to see if Micheal Bryant, Dr. Charles Smith or Rahim Jaffer is amoung them, but somehow I doubt the kind of economic loss a poor or working class person experiences in our court system is of the same scale that professional people face after being ritualistically exhonerated.
It's why the left used to believe in a graduated income tax, before it went along with the tory philosophy of flat taxes... sorry, we are calling them comsumption taxes now, I think... it recognized that a few hundred thousand dollars was substantially different to those with millions that it is to those with dozens.
I agree with you, and I do not accept that "official" narrative in the least. The problem is this: I have seen no conclusive evidence whatsoever (and I'm deliberately saying that in an extreme way, because I believe in the presumption of innocence) that Bryant committed any criminal act. I can't comment on provincial traffic offences.
So, two things:
1. Based on the video alone (because tragically Sheppard is gone), the Crown would have to have a reasonable prospect of proving that Bryant deliberately aimed his vehicle at and struck Sheppard.
2. There is no such offence as "leaving the scene". We clarified and discussed that on the day after the incident. It's called "failing to stop", and here it was:
For those who are interested, here is the Criminal Code re failing to stop at the scene of an accident:
Failure to stop at a scene of accident
252. (1) Every person commits an offence who has the care, charge or control of a vehicle, vessel or aircraft that is involved in an accident with
(a) another person,
(b) a vehicle, vessel, or aircraft, or
(c) in the case of a vehicle, cattle in the charge of another person, and with intent to escape civil or criminal liability fails to stop the vehicle, vessel, or if possible, the aircraft, give his or her name and address and, where any person has been injured or appears to require assistance, offer assistance.
So if he stops and does what it says, he can leave.
I agree. But in order to lay criminal charges, you need positive evidence of action and intent.
I agree. But that doesn't condemn that individual Bryant in that particular incident. And yet, we have people here calling him a "murderer". I limit myself in such judgments to calling the U.S. and Canadian and NATO militaries and the Israeli regime and such "murderers". But people here condemn Bryant because he's rich, a Liberal, drives a fancy car... and they look for ways to find him guilty. What the hell is that? And why don't you please comment on that phenomenon?
An orthodox sceptic would have difficulty on a jury convicting anyone. Depending on one's mood and biases, there's a lot of wiggle room in that word "reasonable".
In a province where prosecutors find it "reasonable" to turn a blind eye to exculpatory evidence, or witnesses who lie in support of the Crown's case, it's telling that every T has to be crossed and every i has to be dotted for Micheal Bryant and Rahim Jaffer. And others of a certain class, less recently.
Yes, some want to see the evidence in such a way that convicts Bryant just on the basis he's a Liberal, or rich or whatever. And some reflexively want to see the evidence in such a way that the disturbing picture of how our system works just goes away and leaves them alone.
A while back, years ago in fact, some guy here in London was going around opening up rub n' tugs, and city council reacted by creating by laws that targeted these businesses specifically, in an underhanded-- and what proved to be illegal way. I thought that was wrong, but a freind reminded me that this business owner was surely not fit to be the poster boy for liberty and freedom.
So, Micheal Bryant is now our poster boy for the way our courts ought to work. That you can't be convicted (sorry, tried) for something unless the evidence is such that it could pass muster with the most orthodox sceptic.
Why did we start with Bryant? Why didn't we start with Stephen Truscott? Or Guy Paul Morin? or William Mullins-Johnson? or many, many others, and more to come?
But hey, if you want Micheal Bryant or Rahim Jaffer as your poster boys for good justice, knock yourself out.
But hey, if you want Micheal Bryant or Rahim Jaffer as your poster boys for good justice, knock yourself out.
If you want a "poster boy" for our justice system, check out Fredy Villanueva's story. Check out the coroner's inquest, where untold public funds are being spent to vilify poor Hispanic youth and justify the actions of cops - who approached a groups of kids committing a serious crime (playing dice in a park - contrary to some alleged bylaw), and ended up shooting and killing one and wounding others. The kids were unarmed and never touched the cops.
Actually, the more I think about the real crimes that take place daily in this country - against POC, FN, the poor, working people, the homeless, women, LGBT - the real indictments of our racist and classist justice system, the real indignities suffered - the more astonishment I feel at this "bike vs. car" and "rich vs. poor" allegory that some see in this sad but ultimately not very important Bryant-Sheppard tale. I guess we can't control what outrages us, so we'll all have to just go with our own instincts here.
Unionist, this Michael Bryant case is the flip side of Hispanic youth being shot by police. You can't have one without the other.
What a load of condescending crappola.
In my posts I never went beyond what is clearly visible in the videos and eyewitness statements reported that night. The entire video is unclear. However, the portion up to the striking of Sheppard by Bryant is quite clear. Bryant says he stalled once. Yet the video clearly shows him 'lurching' forward twice. Already the narrative fails. Bryant clearly strikes Sheppard from behind. Already the fear portion of the narrative fails. Bryant is clearly shown reversing his car, swerving around a prone Sheppard and taking off. At this point the video becomes hazy and unclear. You can see the hazy figure of Sheppard moving towards Bryants car - after Bryant has already begun to leave at speed. So again the narrative presented by Peck fails utterly. After that we only have Bryant's account and it seems to have been accepted whole cloth without any attempt to construct any other possibilities, including using eyewitness accounts given right after the incident that are in direct contradiction to Bryant's account.
Maybe it doesn't matter to you that someone who doesn't fit your criteria of the deserving dead was killed and the person responsible for it will face no responsibility at all for any of his actions, but for some of us we see the inherent social justice issues on display in this episode.
500_Apples, in general you're right - but in specific terms, you're wrong. This particular case proves nothing. It's a bad flip side. All it shows is that rich people have lots of money to spend on defending themselves. Wow. But what it evokes in some babblers is a feeling (nay, declarations) that the rich guy is guilty of something. That part is pure emotion, little different from the cops who figured that Fredy's brother Dany must be guilty of something because of his gang connections, etc.
I can call the Canadian Forces murderers and aggressors without having to hate and falsely condemn individual soldiers of war crimes, lacking specific evidence. Why can't I be indignant against the wealthy and powerful controlling the justic system, without having to demonize Bryant and turn Sheppard into a martyred saint, in the absence of any specific evidence?
And you hate Bryant because his name comes before "C" in the alphabet!
Now can we possibly take a small break from concocting nonsensical straw men and respond to what the other person is saying, rather than using our cheap mind-reading instruments to infer evil motives?
I did read your condescending drivel and you are clearly drawing a line around who is deserving and who is not in terms of your empathy and the support of progressives. I know it hurts to have your double standards called out, but there you go.
I don't think assigning some value and some dignity to another person is creating a martyred Saint, just a futile attempt to correct the demonizing that Bryant, Navigator and certain reporters and colunists engaged in.
And it's hardly demonizing to suggest that Bryant be subjected to the same legal process as anyone else. That such a thing might be unfair might be true in some way of looking at it. But certainly not unfair in terms of how things work. Particularly when Bryant is one of the architects of how things work.
Funny, how terrified of the justice system a former attourney general is.
And as you know, there are no shortage of things that outrage me. You should see the stuff I don't write. This is just one more example that few will remember in a month.
But 500 Apples is right. The mechanism here is the same mechanism that Robert Picton utilized. He picked victims that people like Micheal Bryant, Navigator, and much of the media assign no value to.
And, the majority-- most who should know better-- trick themselves into believing that outrageous as it is, it wouldn't happen to them because the Bryants and Navigators and all the rest of this machine put some value on their lives.
No, they don't.
So, we can pick our outrage over our particular arena of self interest, be it class analysis, equality for women, for native people, and the people currently being murdered in our name in places like Afghanistan, but it's all the same subject, and we can talk about them singularly, as they happen, without it somehow signifying a careless attitude towards the other examples.
I agree. But in order to lay criminal charges, you need positive evidence of action and intent.
Thanks for skipping over my comment. The police believed there were grounds for several charges, they laid them. The crown, or special prosecutor, conducted "an investigation" and determined without the benefit of any cross examination by any advocate for the deceased, to forego a court case leaving all of these questions unanswered, a young man dead and his reputation sullied. That is justice? Not in my view.
Thanks for skipping over my comment.
I certainly didn't mean to. I was away from the computer, and when I returned, I saw N.R.KISSED's reply to me, so I replied to him. Never scrolled back to see the others.
I've read your previous post now. You say no one here has convicted Bryant of anything. What do you make of words like "murderer"?
As for the deceased victim, if you want an investigation to rehabilitate his reputation, call for that. But you haven't. No one has. People were calling for Bryant's hide (when the charges were laid - read the September thread), now they're saying there should have been a trial. As if criminal charges and trials have anything whatsoever to do with clearing Sheppard's reputation.
I'll stick to my version. If people need to draw conclusions, based on inadequate evidence, about individual rich powerful people in order to maintain their personal conviction of how bad capitalism is, so be it. I hate capitalism too. But that doesn't tell me whom to "side" with in some road rage confrontation. My manual isn't as specific as all that.
But in this material world ruled by capitalism, Bryant is free to shop til he drops. Allan Sheppard is with the manitou, and I don't think they have gold-plated public pensions there.
Nobody: Did you kill the white man who killed you?
William Blake: I'm not dead. Am I?
So Unionist the bottom line is you think there is no problem with a Liberal party donator investigating a Liberal politician.
I am pissed that our justice system has descended to this crass a level. Even if Peck was right in his determination this system is not transparent justice it is star chamber justice. That is my problem with this case.
I am sure the fact that the system seems to work far better for some than others is mere serendipity.
Thanks for skipping over my comment.
I certainly didn't mean to. I was away from the computer, and when I returned, I saw N.R.KISSED's reply to me, so I replied to him. Never scrolled back to see the others.
I've read your previous post now. You say no one here has convicted Bryant of anything. What do you make of words like "murderer"?
As for the deceased victim, if you want an investigation to rehabilitate his reputation, call for that. But you haven't. No one has. People were calling for Bryant's hide (when the charges were laid - read the September thread), now they're saying there should have been a trial. As if criminal charges and trials have anything whatsoever to do with clearing Sheppard's reputation.
I'll stick to my version. If people need to draw conclusions, based on inadequate evidence, about individual rich powerful people in order to maintain their personal conviction of how bad capitalism is, so be it. I hate capitalism too. But that doesn't tell me whom to "side" with in some road rage confrontation. My manual isn't as specific as all that.
Your second paragraph is quite untrue. Many of us have from the beginning lamented the manner in which Sheppard's character was assasinated and how this was likely to influence the outcome of any proceedings. Bryant is certainly guilty in participating in this process. Not a criminal charge perhaps but ethically abhorent.
I was out with a friend for dinner the other night and she knew Darcy. She knew him as a kind and thoughtful person who as a fellow cyclist would always tell her "to be careful and ride safe." Peck did not seem overly concerned in interviewing those who might portray Darcy in another light.
What Bryant is also guilty of and again it may not be a crime, but he is guilty of not at any point acknowledging that he might have done something differently. That would be a sign of genuine contrition but most likely would go against legal advice.
So Unionist the bottom line is you think there is no problem with a Liberal party donator investigating a Liberal politician.
You're right. I think accused, crown, and jurors should be required to declare their political voting habits, in order to ensure that conflicts of interest are avoided.
No, you had decided already on September 1 that Bryant should be charged with manslaughter, based on some "witness" accounts (which included witnesses saying what Bryant was "trying" to do!). That was long before you or anyone had heard of Peck's investigation. So you had a problem with this case from day one. That's the prejudicial approach which (I'll admit) I started with too, but I knocked it out of my head.
If you think I'm saying the system works for working people and the poor, I guess I haven't been all that clear in my posts. I'll just keep trying harder, my friend.
I think Bryant could be senate material. He's got that certain edge, like he's better than most.
Nobody: That tobacco is for your voyage... William Blake.
William Blake: Nobody... I don't smoke.
Dead Man
I've read your previous post now. You say no one here has convicted Bryant of anything. What do you make of words like "murderer"?
As for the deceased victim, if you want an investigation to rehabilitate his reputation, call for that. But you haven't. No one has. People were calling for Bryant's hide (when the charges were laid - read the September thread), now they're saying there should have been a trial. As if criminal charges and trials have anything whatsoever to do with clearing Sheppard's reputation.
I'll stick to my version. If people need to draw conclusions, based on inadequate evidence, about individual rich powerful people in order to maintain their personal conviction of how bad capitalism is, so be it. I hate capitalism too. But that doesn't tell me whom to "side" with in some road rage confrontation. My manual isn't as specific as all that.
Well, first, they're words on a message board. They carry all the weight of a fart on a windy day. Bryant faces no such accusation and never has but now, also, he faces no consequences for his actions and, probably, never has.
Calling for an inquiry is a cop out. A trial is an inquiry which would have, if reasonable grounds were established, apportioned accountability as well as provided a fair hearing for both sides. An inquiry is bullshit.
Your version is what? No trials for people who kill other people in street altercations if a conviction can't be rendered based on hearsay and media reports? That is your version for everyone or just the privileged of our society?
I'm sorry, Unionist, for the first time since I've been on babble you out-and-out wrong and I don't know for what reason you are adopting such a faulty and indefensible posture.
I think it's appalling that Bryant's PR entourage would choose to focus on character assassination of a dead man in order to sway public opinion against Sheppard. That is truly disgusting. Despicable. It's the ultimate in scum-baggery. It just goes to show what kind of supreme asshole deluxes in positions of authority we're dealing with here in Ontario.
So Unionist the bottom line is you think there is no problem with a Liberal party donator investigating a Liberal politician.
You're right. I think accused, crown, and jurors should be required to declare their political voting habits, in order to ensure that conflicts of interest are avoided.
No, you had decided already on September 1 that Bryant should be charged with manslaughter, based on some "witness" accounts (which included witnesses saying what Bryant was "trying" to do!). That was long before you or anyone had heard of Peck's investigation. So you had a problem with this case from day one. That's the prejudicial approach which (I'll admit) I started with too, but I knocked it out of my head.
If you think I'm saying the system works for working people and the poor, I guess I haven't been all that clear in my posts. I'll just keep trying harder, my friend.
Unionist try reading for content. If the system is meant to ensure that the politicians don't get special treatment it must preclude political activists from deciding on politicians criminal culpability. I never said anything about people declaring who they vote for I am talking about donating to a party. Only a small percentage of Canadians donate to political parties so it is not like the untainted pool of talent is too shallow. But instead of responding to that point you go to the absurdity requiring that special prosecutors declare their voting habits. For your information that is called a strawman argument.
Please respond to my actual arguments not the ones you can rebut the easiest.
As for making up my mind before hand here is what I actually said.
"This is from the link above. If it is true then he needs to be charged with manslaughter at least."
The meaning of my quote is that if the facts as stated are correct then charges should follow. Did I say I believed the witness report NO I DID NOT. You may be prejudiced but I still maintain as I have consistently that we need a better process because this leads to the administration of justice being called into disrepute by the very system designed to take political cases out of any potential conflict.
I still don't know the facts because Richard Peck an appointed liberal supporter says there isn't a case. The police said there was a case and the current Ontario prosecutors who would normally look at this were replaced with person with a greater perception of potential bias. If you would like to respond to my actual argument that would be wonderful.
So try reading my posts for content.
.
I think it's appalling that Bryant's PR entourage would choose to focus on character assassination of a dead man in order to sway public opinion against Sheppard. That is truly disgusting. Despicable. It's the ultimate in scum-baggery. It just goes to show what kind of supreme asshole deluxes in positions of authority we're dealing with here in Ontario.
It is also very telling that a former attorney general has such little faith in the justice system that he feels the need to hire a company to engage in spin.
It is also very telling that a former attorney general has such little faith in the justice system that he feels the need to hire a company to engage in spin.
Not only that he engaged one, that it was his first move. And like I said before, I doubt very much that the only people Navigator called were their flying monkey brigade in the media. And those people called other people, favours remembered and exchanged, and then Peck gets a call. And the fix is in.
It's all well and good that all of us are upset in one form or another on emotional and ethical grounds. But there's a colder analysis. The way things were fixed for Bryant, the involvement of the "special" prosecutor appointed by Chris Bently, the ability of Navigator to nakedly and easily enlist the services of media people to lie on Bryant's behalf is but an illustration of the corruption running through everything in politics.
Let's look over at the M.P.'s expense issue. It isn't about money, it's about the influence and power that money buys. Not that money, your money. M.P.'s get sued, they turn around and give a blank cheque to a friend in a law firm-- or a law firm Milliken might mention to the M.P. at one of his extravagant parties that he thanks you very much for providing-- and then a favour is owed, and community opposition to this plan or that gets suprisingly bulldozed by a law firm you can't possibly match in resources.
A billion or more to be spent on security for the G20. So much money, so fast, you know a good portion of it will go to Conservative friendly "private security" firms that do little or nothing for it, as long as they provide or have provided favours or support for the Conservatives.
So for every dollar you give to Ottawa for the things you would want, how much is siphoned off by this system? A dime? Twenty cents? Fifty?
And then when you ask for universal day care, it's "oohh geeez, you know, that's expensive, I don't think we can do that." Or, "hmm, times are tough, we have to close the pediatric cardiac care unit in your town because Ottawa cut transfer funds and, well you can see how none of this is the fault of this wonderfull provincial government." And if you object strenuously enough, they'll get Navigator to call your local paper, and all of a sudden the paper is telling everyone how sad this is all so necessary, that these social programs are just sooooooooooo expensive.
Don't kid yourself that these people are not actively hurting you every day.
But we're supposed to worry about poor Michael Bryant.
Gr8 post Tommy.....
I have to agree with those who have concluded something is wrong with Bryant killing a cyclist and getting off with not so much as a traffic ticket. His special treatment started with not getting a breathalyzer test and ended with having all charges dropped without a trial. If it was a regular person like you or I driving the car that night we would have been treated much differently. Without a PR firm and high powered lawyers we would have probably pleaded guilty to some lesser charge that our legal aid lawyer got after being dragged through the legal system for many months.One law for the wealthy, connected and privileged and another law for the rest of us.
Traffic ticket? For Bryant? After reading a certain few posts above, I was under the impression that Sheppard didn't deserve to live. Bryant was merely doing the public a favour by ramming Sheppard into a mailbox, backing over him with his sports car, then driving off and leaving him to die writhing in agony. Sheppard had it coming as far as some of us are concerned. God bless Michael Bryant. He should be a senator some day.
People here still defending the trial by media of the victim? Sheeze.
Traffic ticket? For Bryant? After reading a certain few posts above, I was under the impression that Sheppard didn't deserve to live. Bryant was merely doing the public a favour by ramming Sheppard into a mailbox, backing over him with his sports car, then driving off and leaving him to die writhing in agony. Sheppard had it coming as far as some of us are concerned. God bless Michael Bryant. He should be a senator some day.
I'm sure you don't make a habit of reading online comments to news stories in the Toronto Sun, but you just quoted about half of them.
I'm way late, but I'd like to way in here.
I understand (I think) Unionist's frustrations here. The complaints about special treatment for the privileged are certainly justified, but it goes both ways. I think that all Unionist has been trying to express is that just as we can all agree that the marginalized should never be guilty of crimes because of their social position the same is true for the privileged. (well, they're guity of all that goes along with being privileged, but not necessarily of other things).
That being said, I have had the opposite turn around from Unionist. When this thing first happened my initial reaction was that this was a meeting between two very aggressive people, at least one of whom may have been a raging a$$hole, that escalated and ended up with someone being killed. It was clearly not a cyclist vs car issue, but rather more akin to a fight outside a bar. I tried then to separate the social standing of these two individuals. There is a time and a palce for that (such as the police murder of Junior Manon last month). It didn't seem to fit here.
But, since the initial hearing the facts of this case seem to support more and more the idea that Bryant may have been the primary agressor in this situation. Not was the primary agressor... may have been. WHich means he very well may have been criminally responsible for Mr. Sheppard's death.
The miscarriage of justice here isn't that Braynt wasn't immediately convicted, but that it didn't go to trial. But now I'm just repeating stuff, so I'll shut up.
What has puzzled me from Day 1 is why Bryant wouldn't have got out of the car to deal with the collision the moment it happened, no matter how minor it started it out. I don't think I've seen a single suggestion that the bike hit the car. Therefore, the car must have hit the bike. Nor have I heard any suggestion that Sheppard threatened Bryant after the first "tap". Therefore, Bryant had a responsibility to ensure that a) the rider was ok and b) that there was no damage to the bike that he was responsible for. In fact, if I recall, Bryant himself is an avid cyclist who ought to have known better.
That said, I also agree with the contention that no one should be assumed guilty based solely on their class, race, profession or even their political affiliations.
Is there a link to Peck's report anywhere?
And perhaps an example or two of where it has gone the other way would be appropriate about now. Guy Paul Morin, Donald Marshall, Simon Marshall, David Milgaard, or William Mullins-Johnson. In the last case, Mullins-Johnson was the victim of old white boy incompetence, a pathologist who had been fudging forensic evidence on behalf of the crown for years. They didn't need the likes of his testimony in the Sheppard case, because it was all caught on video tape and eye witness testimonials, which was basically ignored by an old white boys' clique known as the justice system in Ontario, and setting free into the cool breeze one of their own without so much as a slap on the wrist.