Charge Dropped Against Michael Bryant Part 2

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.

Stockholm wrote:

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.

Unionist wrote:

No, LTJ - what I'm saying is that I believe she is [i]exaggerating[/i]. 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.

Appearance of Conflict is conflict of interest light, and corruption light.  Like smoking light cigarettes will only give you cancer light.

N.R.KISSED wrote:

Unionist wrote:

No, LTJ - what I'm saying is that I believe she is [i]exaggerating[/i]. 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.

Unionist wrote:

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.

He has his health.

Who was handling the affair, the Ministry of Health? Because that would explain everything.

Unionist wrote:

N.R.KISSED wrote:

Unionist wrote:

No, LTJ - what I'm saying is that I believe she is [i]exaggerating[/i]. 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, 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.

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.

Tommy_Paine wrote:

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.

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. [b]This particular case[/b] 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?

Life, the Universe... wrote:

Maybe it doesn't matter to you that someone who doesn't fit your criteria of the deserving dead was killed...

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?

Unionist wrote:

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.

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?

Unionist wrote:

Frustrated Mess wrote:

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

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

Unionist wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

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.

Quote:

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. 

No, you had decided [url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/ex-ontario-ag-bryant-held#... on September 1[/url] 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.

Quote:

I am sure the fact that the system seems to work far better for some than others is mere serendipity.  

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.

.  

Fidel wrote:

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.

Gr8 post Tommy.....

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.

Fidel wrote:

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.

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?