Bryant Charged III

103 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Wed, 2009-09-02 18:13

Tommy_Paine

Bryant Charged III

What no one seems to see here is that it took forever for Bryant's name to be released to the media.

So, he's getting extra special protection right off the bat.

And in that time, it's pretty obvious to even the least suspicious, or aught to be, that a serious campaign took place to turn this whole thing around to blame the victim.

Blame the dead guy.

The guy who can't tell his side of the story.

Fuck me.

You know, there's reporters all over the globe that pay the ultimate price for challenging authority. Then we have the Toronto media, cowards all, who stick up for a spoiled political brattling who was so scared of someone yelling at him that he felt justified in using lethal force, and still does it seems from his bleatings today.

Here's a goddamn tip for Toronto media:

I heard Sheppard was a time traveller, and was actually Adolf Hitler, and I hear he ate babies for breakfast.

[Link to Part II thread added by Maysie]

Wed, 2009-09-02 16:45

writer

Odd, I heard Bryant's name associated with this thing when I woke up the next morning. The reports indicated that the police wouldn't say anything, because charges hadn't been laid. Online, I saw clips of Bryant in a cruiser. One clip included an exchange between a journalist and someone at the hotel who was trying to block a shot of the car.

The journalist indicated that he had a right to shoot the footage from a public area, and the staff person did not have the right to block it.

Anyway, off to the demo

5 pm @ Bloor and Bay, west to Avenue Road, where bikes will be put down in a 5-minute vigil.

Wed, 2009-09-02 16:58

Tommy_Paine

And just why did it take so long to charge Bryant? Everyone had to get on the same page?

I'm sorry, we'll never know the facts here, ever.

The trial was over during today's news cycle.

Wed, 2009-09-02 17:12

Green Grouch

No kidding T_P. It's been fascinating watching the headlines evolve over the past 24 hours. First the pre-emptive apology, then the "revelations" about Sheppard's being drunk (or not-- depending on whether you believe the cop who said Sheppard wasn't drunk, as opposed to believing the cop who said Bryant wasn't drunk); then the declaration of innocence, and now CBC's latest coup de grace speculating on whether Sheppard was "holding the wheel of the car":

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/09/02/toronto-bryant-cyclist-sheppard523.html

Wow. Quite a feat, to not only hold the wheel of a car while heading against traffic down Bloor St while hanging out the side of the car but to also ensure that you steer yourself into a mailbox AND a tree. But I suppose Sheppard didn't run himself over.. though of course it might also coincidentally emerge that he was a contortionist (gasp!) and might well have run himself over.

Running through my head is the old South African police tactic of making people fall out of high windows so that they could say the person "became dead" rather than use the word "killed" and pin the blame on people who could not witness to what really happened. I am not comparing this sorry situation to apartheid era repression. But I do feel we're seeing an instant and progressively-worsening effort to ensure that a man now unable to defend himself is made to look as bad as possible as quickly as possible. It's the oldest tactic in the world, and with what passes for press here, combined with an awe of rich white politics, it's guaranteed to work.

The "Mr Bryant" comments on the CBC site say it all.

Wed, 2009-09-02 17:21

farnival

from the previous thread:

Snert wrote:

Quote:
if you want to talk about where time begins, how about him stopping and resolving the situation in the first place instead of taking off?

There seems to be very little information about the nature of the altercation that began this, so I have no idea whether some kind of "resolution" was or wasn't required. Accounts suggest that Sheppard didn't appear injured by whatever happened, and I suppose investigators could look at his bike to see if there was damage. If he wasn't injured and his bike wasn't damaged, I see no reason why Bryant should have stuck around. At any rate, if you can get close enough to grab onto the mirror then I would think you'd be close enough to see the licence plate. I have hard time believing that Sheppard ran after the car and held onto the mirror because he wanted to chat, or because Bryant had knocked the bell off his bike and he wanted to be reimbursed. But perhaps the investigation will turn up more.

well i would agree that we have very little information on the first "altercation"/accident, but it would be a logical assumption to make that if Bryant, the driver of the car, had stopped and dealt with the situation effectively in the first place, Sheppard, the cyclist, wouldn't have chased after him. so i would assume from the events after, that didn't happen and the cyclist felt aggrieved. i'm not condoning or supporting anyone involved's behaviour. but i am wholeheartedly condemning Bryant's reaction to a guy he just hit earlier and was clearly upset. you don't make the situation worse by doing what is already well documented that he did. it's one thing to grab a car's mirror and throw your bag around when you're upset. it's another to step on the gas of a motor vehicle weighing tonnes and drive with horrific recklessness causing death, that could have been avoided.

unless you thought of yourself as a hotshot dude above the law faced with a "crazy courier", and decide in your road rage to show off to your wife on your anniversary date, and take care of the situation yourself, and show buddy who's boss. kill him. that'll teach him to bug anyone again.

because certain death or horrendous grevious injury were the only result from the choices Bryant made. a dent in the car appears to be the only result from the choices the cyclist made.

i weigh 200lbs, my pack sometimes 40lbs. my bike is 27lbs. that's 267lbs on average. even a small car weighs thousands. you intentionally attack me with your car, i call that attempted murder.

Wed, 2009-09-02 17:30

farnival

well the "grabbed the wheel of the car" is as inevitable to be speculated on as it would be logical to ask if that was the case. why didn't he say that right away?

AND WHY DIDN'T HE TAKE HIS FOOT OFF THE GAS AND BRAKE OR TURN OFF THE IGNITION???? was the cyclist so far in the car with his feet out he was controlling both the wheel and the pedals of the car?

sounds like a road rage murderer is going to get off scott free.

Wed, 2009-09-02 17:31

martin dufresne

My short take on this. I have been riding and driving long enough to know that when a car pulls out of a parking spot and is hit by a cyclist as seems to have been the case given the location of the dent, it is the car driver who is at fault.

If the impact is hard enough to leave a large dent in the size of the car, you can be sure that the bike's front wheel - and probably the fork assembly - is shot. Trying to get Bryant to stop and be accountable for this damage to his essential working tool was entirely within Sheppard's rights. Driving away was not. Speeding was not. Compromising the life of Sheppard and of surrounding pedestrians and motorists was not. Even if it is nearly impossible to establish Bryant's intent in Sheppard's ensuing death, Bryant's crimes remain blatant, and we should all be ready to scream bloody murder if he is allowed to plea-bargain out of substantive sanctions.

(Unionist, I am shocked at your continuing sarcasm at those who tried to point out the white, male, class privilege at work in Bryant's behaviour and treatment so far. Am learning to roll back even minimal expectations.)

Wed, 2009-09-02 18:05

remind

Funny how someone, namely Sheppard, could be intoxicated and run down the street after the car, catch it and then hang on through all of that.

It would seem then intoxication has minimal effect on reaction time, and motor skill ability! :rolleyes:

Wed, 2009-09-02 18:05

Slumberjack

Tommy_Paine wrote:
What no one seems to see here is that it took forever for Bryant's name to be released to the media.

So, he's getting extra special protection right off the bat.

Special protection due to his status can't be ruled out of course. The timeline though might suggest a reasonable investigative lag on the part of the cops at this point.

Monday 9:45 p.m.: Michael Bryant becomes involved in an alleged altercation with cyclist Darcy Allan Sheppard, 33, while driving his Saab convertible on downtown Toronto's Bloor Street. Police say Sheppard then grabbed on to the side of Bryant's car as it drove off, fell and suffered fatal injuries.

Monday 11:30 p.m.: Bryant is taken into police custody.

Tuesday 2:20 p.m.: In a statement to reporters, Bryant expresses his "deepest condolences" to Sheppard's family but declines to discuss the incident and asks for his privacy. He also thanks those who contacted his family to offer their support.

Tuesday 2:30 p.m.: Bryant is charged with criminal negligence causing death and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death.

Wednesday 1:10 p.m.: Toronto Mayor David Miller accepts Bryant's resignation as CEO of Invest Toronto, the city's business development agency.

Wed, 2009-09-02 18:16

#10

Unionist

martin dufresne wrote:

(Unionist, I am shocked at your continuing sarcasm at those who tried to point out the white, male, class privilege at work in Bryant's behaviour and treatment so far. Am learning to roll back even minimal expectations.)

I haven't posted in this thread.

My last post in the other thread was to quote the Criminal Code on leaving the scene.

This "white, male, class privilege" aspect remains to be proven. I don't have much time for people who merely state it without actually illustrating how it operates here. There might be some object lessons to be learned from this incident if someone took the time to stop labelling and start educating.

Meanwhile, as for drawing conclusions without having all the facts, I consider that equivalent to a lynch mob - only usually those are directed against victims without any form of privilege. We can do a lot better than the prejudicial conclusions being drawn here on a purely ad hominem basis.

Wed, 2009-09-02 18:32

#11

Sean in Ottawa

If I were involved in investigating I'd take my time and do it right.

I am inclined to think Martin's description of events is likely correct- that is some dent in the car and the bike repair cost would be devastating so he would want to chase down the driver. I did not hear the circumstances of the initial collision so can't speculate if Bryant was pulling out- if so then likely he was at fault as Martin claims but these are facts that must come out.

I do not want to prejudge this but am having a hard time coming up with a scenario where Bryant's actions become reasonable-- even if he was fearful you need to consider his own involvement in escalating the problem and if fearful he could have stopped and abandonned the car with his wife-- it was insured and he could have called the cops if it was about that a person on foot cannot chase down a person and do much damage in a crowd.

But if he were leaving hoping to avoid responsibility for the accident then he would need to take the car with him and that starts to explain things. Things can escalate quickly. Rage is a problem. While I can sympathise with anyone who has made a mistake even a terrible one -- we need to be responsible for our actions -- the sympathy I can feel for Bryant and his stupidity pales beside the sympathy for the cyclist and his family.

Wed, 2009-09-02 18:34

#12

Slumberjack

Unionist wrote:
Meanwhile, as for drawing conclusions without having all the facts, I consider that equivalent to a lynch mob - only usually those are directed against victims without any form of privilege. We can do a lot better than the prejudicial conclusions being drawn here on a purely ad hominem basis.

Exactly. I am unwilling as well to turn the current miserable system of class and race based justice around and point it in yet another direction based solely on ideological grounds, and without knowing the facts. Those calling for a conviction based on ideology and speculation are no better than a lynch mob. It's disturbing, and frankly ominous coming from the mouths of supposed leftists.

Wed, 2009-09-02 18:42

#13

remind

Actually, what is ominous, and indeed sickening, is the closing of ranks, around a privileged white male, by privileged white males...

Wed, 2009-09-02 18:54

#14

Slumberjack

remind wrote:
Actually, what is ominous, and indeed sickening, is the closing of ranks, around a privileged white male, by privileged white males...

It has nothing to do with closing ranks, or to ameliorate the crimes he has been charged with. It has to do with momentarily setting aside justifiable biases against elevated status in the interest of seeing the charges answered under the existing structure of law, as flawed as it is, instead of hypocritically suggesting that what has historically been applied as a form of justice for others of significantly less stature should be applied in this case, just because we'd enjoy the shoe being on the other foot if it were up to us.

Wed, 2009-09-02 18:54

#15

Cueball

Slumberjack wrote:

Unionist wrote:
Meanwhile, as for drawing conclusions without having all the facts, I consider that equivalent to a lynch mob - only usually those are directed against victims without any form of privilege. We can do a lot better than the prejudicial conclusions being drawn here on a purely ad hominem basis.

Exactly. I am unwilling as well to turn the current miserable system of class and race based justice around and point it in yet another direction based solely on ideological grounds, and without knowing the facts. Those calling for a conviction based on ideology and speculation are no better than a lynch mob. It's disturbing, and frankly ominous coming from the mouths of supposed leftists.

Well, what we do know is that however it turns out, if the charges remain as they are, the issue of wether or not the former AG intended to cause bodily harm to the person he was "altercating" with will never be tested before a judge. That much has already been decided. It was an accident. Case closed, according to the charging authorities.

I hardly think that were the circumstances simillar but it was myself and not the former AG, that my assertion that is was an "accidental" death would be taken at face value by the charging authority.

Wed, 2009-09-02 18:56

#16

remind

Oh...so he "fell" and suffered serious injuries, eh? Being slammed into things, which ended in being slammed into a huge mailbox bolted into the cement sidewalk left no injuries, it was the fall to the ground which did it.

I don't have much use/time for those; who are denying the obvious and say it is not being illustrated, even as it is being done by their own apparent commentaries, or pretending comments made in other threads on this are not transferable to this thread.

Fuckin pukeable puke.

Wed, 2009-09-02 18:58

#17

remind

Nonsense, absolute nonsense, but we now see how privileged white men justify to themselves their holding on to their privilege.

Thanks for that.

Wed, 2009-09-02 19:03

#18

Slumberjack

Cueball wrote:
Well, what we do know is that however it turns out, if the charges remain as they are, the issue of wether or not the former AG intended to cause bodily harm to the person he was "altercating" with will never be tested before a judge. That much has already been decided. It was an accident. Case closed, according to the charging authorities.

I hardly think that were the circumstances simillar but it was myself and not the former AG, that my assertion that is was an "accidental" death would be taken at face value by the charging authority.

The charges can always be upgraded, depending on any new evidence coming to light. Any charge contemplated by the police prior to the actual laying of charges would be examined against the reasonable prospect of conviction. If they went ahead right off the bat with manslaughter, second or first degree, based on the definitions you posted earlier, he'd likely walk free. In that case, double jeopardy would prevent the subsequent laying of lesser but still serious charges for the same incident, such as the ones in place now, at least from my understanding of it. They can always ratchet up with new evidence, but starting at the high end would be a daunting challenge for the crown.

Wed, 2009-09-02 19:07

#19

Cueball

Actually you just charge him with all of them at once, then remove those that don't seem likely to stick. That is what he would do if he were handling the case. You do it to sweat the suspect, and get them to plead quickly to the lesser charge. He's not pleading, of course, because he thinks he can get off on the lesser charge.

Wed, 2009-09-02 19:14

#20

Sean in Ottawa

What's wrong with waiting and getting all the facts before you pass judgement? Up till now I think it looks pretty bad for him but I would like to hear the rest of the facts before we go out and lynch him.

It is grossly unfair to say this is about privilege- there are people here who just might want to wait for more informaiton before drawing conclusions -- even if they are leaning that way-- this has nothing to do with the fact he is male and while-- I for one would want to wait for the facts regardless especially if I am inclined to make a very harsh judgement. In fact the harsher my judgement is likely to be the more facts I want to support that. In this case we may be talking about murder so I think it is fair for people to not go and make the noose yet and wait for some information. I for one like to know quite a bit before I accuse someone of murder and this is a case that likely will come to that. Perhaps sometimes we need to be reminded that we sometimes can afford a little patience. On this board we are not responsible to do this quickly-- we are not sitting in judgement on behalf of anyone but ourselves-- we are not the court. We can afford to keep an open mind, control our rage and see all the facts -- and we do not need to be labelled as bigotted, sexist and racist for doing so -- that is over-the-top. Not everything I do has to do with race or gender-- I'd feel no different if he were of a different so-called race or a different gender or even if he were not a Liberal (while I won't forgive him for being a Liberal, it takes more than that to want to put him in prison).

On the other hand, I'd like to see him fight this case with only legal aid and not the power of wealth- but that is a whole other thing.

Wed, 2009-09-02 19:16

#21

Sean in Ottawa

Cueball wrote:

Actually you just charge him with all of them at once, then remove those that don't seem likely to stick. That is what he would do if he were handling the case. You do it to sweat the suspect, and get them to plead quickly to the lesser charge. He's not pleading, of course, because he thinks he can get off on the lesser charge.

It is often done this way-- that would not be unreasonable as it sure looks like there is enough to charge him with murder-- we can decide later if we believe he is guilty but for now the charges ought to have been laid based on what we are hearing-- in my view anyway.

Wed, 2009-09-02 19:16

#22

NDPP

The Ontario old boy's club will continue to do what they do best and that is protect one of their own. The smear campaign and suggestion the victim was dysfunctional or not right in the head has already begun in the paper I read and all will likely go as lightly as possible on Bryant. Hope everyone keeps watching this one. Long overdue for class war consciousness in any case, maybe this will help advance it slightly..ps don't believe the police necessarily either - they are also known to be partial in such matters..

Wed, 2009-09-02 19:35

#23

George Victor

The police required several hours to interview the large number of witnesses to this . Justice may result. We may soon learn more.

Uncanny, the number ready to roll out the tumbrel in speculative excitement based on a variety of reports, the sex and racial background of posters, and no witnesses! Perhaps uncanny does not capture the frightening nature of this three-thread, hysterical opus.

Wed, 2009-09-02 19:38

#24

Tommy_Paine

This "white, male, class privilege" aspect remains to be proven.

When have you ever known a media campaign such as this happen so rapidly? And isn't media attention usually directed at, you know, the person who took a life?

But then, I am assuming someone like Bryant would have the requisite friends in high places that could arrange such a thing, and assuming we have a media that can be bought. Rediculous-- just ask Senators Wallin and Duffy.

There ain't no Red Queen in this game, fellers.

Wed, 2009-09-02 19:40

#25

martin dufresne

Aside: You White guys sure are loose-lipped with intimidating analogies to "lynching"... Isn't it nice to have a tradition of bogeymen to draw on...

As if any of us could lift as much as a finger against Bryant with this innocent discussion of the facts so far. Empathy with the man's alleged fear reflex, the one you speculated on to cover his choices?

Wed, 2009-09-02 19:41

#26

Tommy_Paine

I've seen this shit before George. And if this doesn't make you angry I wonder what would.

Wed, 2009-09-02 20:00

#27

martin dufresne

I want to add that these escalating accusations of us lynching Bryant eerily mirror exactly what he did: stepping on the gas to shake Sheppard off with escalating abuse.

Wed, 2009-09-02 20:03

#28

George Victor

The endemic, ongoing underfunding of long-term care homes, where the residents wander about in an environment of underfunded neglect and society at large ignores them.

The lack of adequate housing for a growing number of Canadians who live a lifestyle so filled with anxiety and want that their being ignored by the mainstream media is the crime calling for a rolling out of the tumbrels.

The lack of adequate funding for early education in this country which means that some will never catch up, and a structure of inequality is maintained.

That makes me angry.

And I will be very angry if the witnesses tell police that Bryant was in full control of his car, nobody hanging on to the wheel besides himself, and that he is being charged with manslaughter. Then I will say, bring on the tumbrels.

If that's okay with the crowd around the guillotine.

Wed, 2009-09-02 20:03

#29

remind

Ya, and that he wasn't charged with more just from what we can see, doesn't indicate anything either!

Wed, 2009-09-02 20:14

#30

jrootham

Conviction is the province of a full tilt trial. What I want to know is why the manslaughter charge was not laid. There is way too much intentionality in the witness reports to have the charge stop at negligence.

This is not about any random rich white guy. This is the former Attorney General AKA the former boss of all the people in charge of prosecuting him. Much more transparancy is required in this case to remove suspicions of special treatment.

Wed, 2009-09-02 20:45

#31

Sineed

My daughter and I went to the protest/memorial today. We had to cut the ride short, as my daughter was on her unicycle, which is much slower than 2 wheels. I don't know how many were there; I'm crap at making those kinds of estimations. But they closed major streets for us. The press was all there, and hundreds of cops, and pictures of Al Sheppard on backpacks. Lots of couriers, and families with babies.

And on the way home, I rode in heavy rush-hour traffic along Bloor West, something I've been afraid to do for years (my daughter took the subway).

Wed, 2009-09-02 20:46

#32

Cueball

Aside from whatever terms people may object to being used to describe the meta-ideological analysis, the "soft-touch" being applied to the former AG is a pretty clear case of corruption. At its heart things like privilege are simply plain old fashioned corruption. By the way, the term "soft-touch" was precisely the term used by a criminal lawyer friend of mine in discussing this case.

So, sorry that some seem to have problems with the terminology, lets just settle on the term corruption. Class, race and gender privilege are basic corruptions, and the "soft-touch" being applied to the former cabinet minister of the reigning party of Ontario corrupt, pure and simple.

No need for class war analysis either, though I appreciate where that is coming from too.

Wed, 2009-09-02 21:14

#33

writer

http://www.blogto.com/city/2009/09/darcy_allan_sheppard_memorial_and_pro...

Wed, 2009-09-02 21:32

#34

remind

Nice comments following those pictures! Not so much, Sheppard died and a privileged white male is going to get away with his death.

What is new in the world besides nothing, oh ya, seals are not cute and cuddly.

Wed, 2009-09-02 21:39

#35

Sineed

Thanks for that link to those awesome pics, writer! I've been looking for something like that.

Wed, 2009-09-02 21:52

#36

remind

Ya, they were great pictures, commentary not so much, and commentary on the commentary, event, and pictures not so much.

Wed, 2009-09-02 22:00

#37

Tommy_Paine

If that's okay with the crowd around the guillotine.

I'm not sure a crowd can be one, especially since I've dropped a few pounds.

But as the crowd, I must say I am astonished at who gets the benifit of the doubt and who doesn't.

After years of watching the sad excuse for justice in this province, the very last person I would ever extend the benifit of the doubt to is someone like Bryant.

This has been a cleverly orchestrated, too clever by half campaign to drag the victim through the mud. Right out of Lawyering 101.

Wed, 2009-09-02 22:01

#38

Wilf Day

Odd how no one had mentioned the Levesque parallel here. Less than three months after he was elected Premier of Quebec, on February 06, 1977, Lévesque's car struck and killed Edgar Trottier. It was alleged that Lévesque had been driving while intoxicated. Lévesque had spent the previous evening and night at the apartment of Yves Michaud. As a breathalyser test was not performed by the police, the testimony of Michaud at the coroner's inquest was crucial in determining that Lévesque was not under the influence of alcohol while driving.

The incident gained extra notoriety when it was revealed that the female companion in the vehicle was not his wife, but a secretary named Corinne Côté. Lévesque’s marriage ended in divorce soon thereafter (the couple had already been estranged for some time), and in April 1979, he married Côté.

He was not charged with any crime, and the incident doesn't seem to have adversely affected his career.

Wed, 2009-09-02 22:46

#39

martin dufresne

Trottier had been lying unconscious, dead drunk, on a busy Montreal thoroughfare late at night when Levesque's car rolled over him. A tragedy for sure, but no comparison with Sheppard being killed by Bryant as S. was trying to keep him from running from the scene of an accident.

Wed, 2009-09-02 22:52

#40

Sineed

You beat me to it, Martin.

The bigger scandal was that Rene had his mistress in the car.

Wed, 2009-09-02 22:52

#41

Wilf Day

martin dufresne wrote:
Trottier had been lying unconscious, dead drunk, on a busy Montreal thoroughfare late at night when Levesque's car rolled over him. A tragedy for sure, but no comparison with Sheppard . . .

So far, I agree.

martin dufresne wrote:
. . . being killed by Bryant as S. was trying to keep him from running from the scene of an accident.

An assumption which may or may not be supported by the evidence.

Wed, 2009-09-02 23:31

#42

martin dufresne

Update on pathetic G&M story: Just as in the Comments section, the tide was starting to turn against Bryant and away from the G&M story demonizing Sheppard, the Goblin Male announces: "Comments have been disabled Editor's Note: We have closed comments on this story for legal reasons. We appreciate your understanding." Invest in Toronto... the city where, with the right friends, you can always run down any problem...

Wed, 2009-09-02 23:31

#43

Cueball

Heh.

Wed, 2009-09-02 23:32

#44

Unionist

martin dufresne wrote:

... S. was trying to keep him from running from the scene of an accident.

No kidding. Did you read the Criminal Code extract I cited in the last thread? I can reprint it here if you like. Also, if you witnessed all this, shouldn't you be contacting the police, or at least some media you trust to get the story out?

Wed, 2009-09-02 23:38

#45

martin dufresne

Had there been an accident? Yes. Did Bryant leave the scene? You bet. Did Sheppard try to hold him back? By all eyewitness accounts, yes.

Wed, 2009-09-02 23:45

#46

Unionist

martin dufresne wrote:

Had there been an accident? Yes.

Not sure - what actually happened?

Quote:
Did Bryant leave the scene? You bet.

That's lawful, as soon as you give the other person your name and address and offer assistance if someone is injured.

Quote:
Did Sheppard try to hold him back? By all eyewitness accounts, yes.

If he did, isn't that kidnapping? or assault? But I don't know what he did. Whatever it was, it ended up with Bryant killing him. Do you think Bryant killed Sheppard because Bryant didn't want to remain at the scene of an accident? Or because he considers lower-class people as subhuman, not worthy of common care and respect? Or because Sheppard was just a temporary nuisance, so Bryant swatted him the way he would an insect? Or because Sheppard was drunk and physically threatening and maybe verbally threatening? Or because initially Bryant just was fed up and wanted to get on his way, and he freaked out when Sheppard jumped onto the car and maybe tried to grab him and/or the steering wheel?

Give us your detailed theory of what happened, please. I personally don't have one.

Wed, 2009-09-02 23:46

#47

Fidel

Wilf Day wrote:

martin dufresne wrote:
. . . being killed by Bryant as S. was trying to keep him from running from the scene of an accident.

An assumption which may or may not be supported by the evidence.

I thought I listened to an eye witness say on national news last night that Sheppard was hanging on the side of Bryant's sports car as Bryant and his lady friend sped away. I guess Sheppard might have hung on a while longer had Bryant not driven him into some trees, a mailbox, and then Bryant drove over him causing Sheppard's death.

Thu, 2009-09-03 00:29

#48

martin dufresne

I wrote:

Had there been an accident? Yes.

Unionist: Not sure - what actually happened?
Listen to the Toronto police statement acknowledging an initial collision. (after the cheesy U2 song excerpt)

Quote:
Did Bryant leave the scene? You bet.

Unionist: That's lawful, as soon as you give the other person your name and address and offer assistance if someone is injured.

There is absolutely no indication that Bryant did that.

Quote:
Did Sheppard try to hold him back? By all eyewitness accounts, yes.

Unionist: If he did, isn't that kidnapping? or assault?

I don't care, play wannabe attorney to the Rich&Famous if that's your fantasy, I am simply vindicating my statement that Sheppard did try to hold back someone committing an illegal act.

Edited to add this from a comment on the blog linked above re: the Darcy Allan Sheppard solidarity demo:

...Soon after the accident, Mr. Bryant hired "Navigator Ltd." - a high-end Toronto "communications" firm. I've got acquaintances there, and find it rather suspicious that many columnists who've gone after Mr. Sheppard's character aggressively seem to be those with Navigator connections. A core part of Navigator's standard communication strategy is to lean on friendly columnists, and recruit guest editorialists to "volunteer" their opinions in major newspapers...

Thu, 2009-09-03 00:32

#49

Unionist

So according to you, Sheppard jumped onto the car in an effort to prevent Bryant from leaving the scene of an accident without giving his contact information and offering help, thereby enforcing Section 252 of the Criminal Code? Kind of a citizen's arrest?

Honestly martin, maybe that's what happened, but in the realm of likelihood and probability, it's a stretch. Why not wait to hear all the evidence?

Thu, 2009-09-03 00:43

#50

Cueball

How is that really supposed to happen, since it has already been decided that it was an accident, and the issue of Bryants intent, is therefore irrelevant to the evidence that will be heard in court.

Thu, 2009-09-03 00:44

#51

Unionist

Huh????

If the Crown can't show intent, a court can't convict you on a criminal charge. Any criminal charge.

Maybe I misunderstood your question...

Pages

Topic locked