Bryant charged VI

121 posts / 0 new
Last post
remind remind's picture

Thank you Torontoprofessor, it was very difficult to write, as the essence of emotions felt are difficult to express.

A much greater connection is felt to the place where he lived out the last moments of his life, as opposed to where his ashes are buried. Perhaps that is because he was crying out for help, that came much too late. He cried so loud, it jarred me from sleep 100's of km away, where I woke up screaming "where are you, so I can fiind you?", leading to desperate searches across the province in the middle of the night to see if someone knew where he was.

Anyhow, my apologies for dumping this out, the anniversary of that tragic loss was just a few days ago.

remind remind's picture

Just want to add, in respect to Al Sheppard's children, I know how empty  their lives will now be, and how they will struggle to preserve the memories of him, and the guilt they will feel, as those memories fade away. I know the impacts of the  loss they feel and how it will impact their future, only moreso, as another took said life from them.

 

boomerbsg

I also sympathise for Bryant's children. They are going to grow up with the knowledge that both their parents were involved with a man's death. They are going to have to live with the school yard taunts, snide jokes and a shame for something they did not do. They will be judged guilty simply because of relation.

Slumberjack

boomerbsg wrote:
I also sympathise for Bryant's children. They are going to grow up with the knowledge that both their parents were involved with a man's death. They are going to have to live with the school yard taunts, snide jokes and a shame for something they did not do. They will be judged guilty simply because of relation.

You probably believe that they attend a school where the parents of children get by with any sort of work that puts food on the table.

martin dufresne

Re: boomerbsg's post: That has to be the tawdriest cooptation someone's post I have read here in a long time. Gawd!...

 

remind remind's picture

No shit martin!

boomerbsg

Nope just making a point.

Remind and Martin just because you have decided to make Sheppard your own personal martyr does not give you free reign to invoke Sheppard's children. Leave the kids out of it.

Also props to Slumberjack for eloquently showing the prejudice that people like you will show the Bryant's children. i thought I was going over the top with hyperbole but wow your comment is just mean.

jrootham

Well, he IS a gnome.

 

boomerbsg

still waiting on how you choose who has standing and privilege. Is it race, net income, public profile or is there some equation to this puzzle. It can't be as simple as "I don't like him therefore he needs to be punished" that would just be silly.

keep up with name calling though it amuses me while I sit on my toadstool smoking my pipe

remind remind's picture

Who should have standing and privilege?

What are you doing posting on babble anyway, with comments like that?

jrootham

My point is that the justice system ALREADY does this.  I just think it should be flipped.

 

martin dufresne

boomerbsg: just because you have decided to make Sheppard your own personal martyr does not give you free reign to invoke Sheppard's children. Leave the kids out of it.

Ah, the thrill of the gatekeeper role!. Deciding who should have voice and who not, what is at issue and what isn't... In a thread where you asked why this was relevant, it was Sheppard's father who brought his family's feelings into the picture:
The senior Mr. Sheppard also spoke out for the first time Friday, addressing his son's death in a statement released by Aboriginal Legal Services.
The letter said the Sheppard family is "deeply saddened by the loss of their loved one, and believe that no person deserves to die in the circumstances that occurred."

I can't imagine how you would feel if it had been your father that had been run over and the man responsible that was receiving glowing endorsements from his peers, but I wouldn't deny you voice.

 

Stargazer

Ha, I would, on here anyways.

 

"Think of Bryant's children" Yeah sure. I'll be thinking of Al Sheppard and his family. There are enough people "thinking of Bryant and his children." He'll get off, the kids will be fine. The dead man and his kids? Nope, and people like Stockholm and boomer are here to ensure we think of Bryant's children.

 

 

boomerbsg

jrootham your argument is that the legal system is prejudiced so the solution is to introduce more prejudice?

Oh and Martin I'm not denying anybody's voice I just find it in poor taste that this whole incident has been co-opted by so many people and groups. This is turning into a circus on par with OJ and Michael Jackson. Every editorialist and spin doctor is trying to infuse this case with whatever hobby horse they're riding.

If it was my daughter who died (as my father is already dead and it would be hard for him to get hit by a car seeing that he's underground and... well... dead) I would be extraordinarily pissed about all these people using her to advance their cause. What the hell do I care about some journalist who has never met my daughter and that I have to release a statement through a lawyer in order to feed the beast that is the press.

My daughter would have been reduced to an asset to help sell newspapers, raise money for cycling groups and help launch political careers. My grief and my life would cease to be my own because too many are profiting from the death of my daughter.

I'm saying enough is enough. Let's dial down the rhetoric and wait for the trial.

Fidel

boomerbsg wrote:

jrootham your argument is that the legal system is prejudiced so the solution is to introduce more prejudice?

Oh and Martin I'm not denying anybody's voice I just find it in poor taste that this whole incident has been co-opted by so many people and groups. This is turning into a circus on par with OJ and Michael Jackson. Every editorialist and spin doctor is trying to infuse this case with whatever hobby horse they're riding.

One of their issues in that Darwinian national security state next to us is systemic racism for a long time. The "hobby horse" here in Canada is systemic racism for a long time.

boomerbsg

You asked for my personal opinion and you got it but you just went too far. I want an apology. Using racism is unacceptable.

Call me a Gnome or whatever, it's meaningless, but to invoke racism in your attack is beyond the pale.

martin dufresne

"What the hell do I care about some journalist who has never met my daughter and that I have to release a statement through a lawyer in order to feed the beast that is the press."

More cooptation and silencing. All that is missing is a Métis accent to make it more convincing... (Sorry, I know, I am getting angry again. But not enough...)

 

martin dufresne

My point is that you are the one exhibiting racism by calling Sheppard's identity irrelevant here, and now by attempting to put spin on his father's very words of grief. (I'll gladly delete my post if you apologize.) And I wasn't the one calling you a Gnome.

 ETA: But yes, I did ask for your take on what if it had happened to you and I apologize for that.

remind remind's picture

No condemnation of Bryant's making statements to the press and his PR firm making even more  ugly ones than Bryant himself, you only reserve nasty criticism for Sheppard's father's comments, boomerbsg?

boomerbsg

His identity is irrelevant just as his past is irrelevant (no matter how much Bryant would like it to be). The only thing that is relevant is the 90 seconds that lead up to his death. Secondly I'm not spinning the father's words as I never quoted him. I was empathising with him in that he was forced to release a statement to the press via a lawyer. Hands up who here has had to issue press statements prior to burying a loved one. Is it not enough that he has to bury his son but that he has to release a press statement. If that was me I would have had a breakdown.

My whole point is that everybody, and that includes Bryant and his PR posse, needs to shut the hell up. Let the family grieve in peace and save it for the trial. With time a perspective is gained, cooler heads prevail and justice will hopefully prevail. That is all we can hope for.

 

Slumberjack

boomerbsg wrote:
Also props to Slumberjack for eloquently showing the prejudice that people like you will show the Bryant's children. i thought I was going over the top with hyperbole but wow your comment is just mean.

I've carried on about Bryant's rights long enough here in these threads.  I'll part company when it comes to excessive sympathy for the hard done by in the school yards of the elite.

George Victor

Yeah, FM, it could turn out quite Kafkaesque, (nightmarish) given the need for authority to placate the strident class interests on display...or were you thinking of the impossibility of a fair verdict, period, given the class interests in play?

Polunatic2

Having been away all week, I missed all of these threads and just finished reading them to see what babblers had to say. Fascinating. My own view is that a rush to judgement is not all that helpful. 

A bit of recap of some of the arguments (most of which were rebutted) that I've read:

First, some suggested that Bryant would not be charged because of his standing. Then, when he was charged, it was argued that the charges were not strong enough. Then it was argued by some that it doesn't matter anyway because he will be acquitted followed by the argument that even if he was convicted, that the penalty would be a slap on the wrist and that he would never see jail time. At least one person argued that Bryant has to prove his innocence while another argued that the penalty should be tougher because Bryant is a public figure. Then there's the argument that this will never reach trial and the truth will never be known. It was also argued that because Bryant hired a lawyer who got acquittals for some clients accused of some very heinous crimes, that this somehow proved Bryant's guilt. Then there was the argument that since the legal system is already so flawed (and it is), that the best thing that could happen would be for a wrongul conviction. 

So, from I can read, there are some who would toss out due process, presumption of innocence and the right to legal counsel all because Michael Bryant is a well known liberal. I think the class, race and gender arguments, which may (or may not) be relevant when more facts are known, are just a cover for the fact that Bryant is a liberal. 

I have to wonder if the reaction would have been the same had it been an NDP cabinet minister?

Tommy_Paine

 

When I said former Attourney Generals of Ontario, I made no effort to exclude from that Marion Boyd or whoever else was A.G. under Rae.

But then, an arguement could be made that this is still an anti Liberal bias.

Wink

 

So, from I can read, there are some who would toss out due process, presumption of innocence and the right to legal counsel all because Michael Bryant is a well known liberal. I think the class, race and gender arguments, which may (or may not) be relevant when more facts are known, are just a cover for the fact that Bryant is a liberal.

You should sue your teachers.

 

martin dufresne

Smile

Stockholm

Well Polunatic, you have done a brilliant summary of what all these threads about this incident have been about. That 100% sums it up. And, incidentally, let's admit - for all the expression of sympathy about Sheppard - the only reason we know anything about him or his family and the nly reason anyone is expressing sympathy about him and his childfren is because he died as a result of an altercation with someone who is a public figure. If the same incident had occurred and the driver of the car were some anonymous person - none of us would give a hoot about the case and no one would be expressing any sympathy at all.

 

Polunatic2 wrote:

Having been away all week, I missed all of these threads and just finished reading them to see what babblers had to say. Fascinating. My own view is that a rush to judgement is not all that helpful. 

A bit of recap of some of the arguments (most of which were rebutted) that I've read:

First, some suggested that Bryant would not be charged because of his standing. Then, when he was charged, it was argued that the charges were not strong enough. Then it was argued by some that it doesn't matter anyway because he will be acquitted followed by the argument that even if he was convicted, that the penalty would be a slap on the wrist and that he would never see jail time. At least one person argued that Bryant has to prove his innocence while another argued that the penalty should be tougher because Bryant is a public figure. Then there's the argument that this will never reach trial and the truth will never be known. It was also argued that because Bryant hired a lawyer who got acquittals for some clients accused of some very heinous crimes, that this somehow proved Bryant's guilt. Then there was the argument that since the legal system is already so flawed (and it is), that the best thing that could happen would be for a wrongul conviction. 

So, from I can read, there are some who would toss out due process, presumption of innocence and the right to legal counsel all because Michael Bryant is a well known liberal. I think the class, race and gender arguments, which may (or may not) be relevant when more facts are known, are just a cover for the fact that Bryant is a liberal. 

I have to wonder if the reaction would have been the same had it been an NDP cabinet minister?

martin dufresne

It seems to me that Babble is proof that we do give a hoot - indeed too much of one - about anonymous persons...

Michelle

boomerbsg, if you want to read a nice Hallmark greeting card discussion, then maybe an activist POLITICAL DISCUSSION BOARD - you know, a place where people discuss news, politics, and current events from a political and activist slant - is just not the place for you when it comes to this topic.

Yes, it's quite possible that the family doesn't like the activism that has happened as a result - or, perhaps they do.  Who knows.  When something like this happens, it's not just the family's business, it's everyone's business in society.

So, if you just want everyone to just shut up until the trial, then I suggest you take yourself off to some nice place on the internet where you can look at sunshine and lollipops, and leave the political and activist discussions that have emerged because of this incident to, you know, people here who actually want to discuss the political implications and activism around what happened.

Stargazer

Stockholm wrote:

Well Polunatic, you have done a brilliant summary of what all these threads about this incident have been about. That 100% sums it up. And, incidentally, let's admit - for all the expression of sympathy about Sheppard - the only reason we know anything about him or his family and the nly reason anyone is expressing sympathy about him and his childfren is because he died as a result of an altercation with someone who is a public figure. If the same incident had occurred and the driver of the car were some anonymous person - none of us would give a hoot about the case and no one would be expressing any sympathy at all.

Bullshit. Speak for yourself. Do not speak for me and others here.

writer writer's picture

Footage of the initial incident: YouTube / CityTV

remind remind's picture

So, Bryant drove up behind Al Sheppard and started pushing him with his car for over a car length, unfuckingbelievable!

It is no damn wonder Sheppard took off after him.

martin dufresne

I wonder if this footage will convince lawyer Susan Abramovitch - who was sitting in the car - to save her career from going down the tube, by telling the truth about what her husband did. At any rate, there are other witnesses looking on, whose testimony will be crucial.

IF this ever gets to trial of course...

Sean in Ottawa

I am hoping Stockholm meant we would not give a hoot because we would not know about the incident because it would not be reported.-- I hope he did not mean that we would not give a hoot because "a nobody" would not matter to us. I believe that he meant that would would not be discussing this because we likely would not have heard about this story- or at least in enough detail to speak to it.

I may disagree with politicians but when they get into trouble personally I am often sympathetic to the fact that they trade on public goodwill and can pay a disproportionate price for a mistake. I do not feel more or less sorry for a politician in a party I support over one in another even if I might feel sorry for the party I support if they lost someone good. I get that familiarity breeds sympathy so the fact we know the name and the face means we are more likely to be sympathetic than if we did not.

My feelings about this are related to the incident not because it is a Liberal who has been charged. It is true we are likely only hearing about this because a celebrity was charged but that does not mean we would not care about an unknown person - just that we would likely not hear about an unknown to have the opportunity to care.

The outrage comes from the loss of a life-- the stupidity of road rage and the aggression that allows someone to act in a way that could kill another in such a senseless way. My desire to see a fair trial that gets at the bottom of the story is the same and so will be my desire to see the driver go to jail for a very long time if it is confirmed in court that this incident is what it looks like to me.

Apart from that-- there is a difference between drivers of cars and cyclists and we do have to improve public policy with respect to how roads are shared.

remind remind's picture

For good example of this, nobody knowing effect, we can look at the little boy in BC who died over the weekend after being hit by a car, after which the driver lost control and the car flipped over and landed on top of him, after hitting him first.

The lack of reporting nationally does not mean that no one cares, it just means it is a low profile case, nationally.

There is no doubt that the fellow who hit him is going to be spending a lot of time in jail. He was also driving without a drivers license.

In fact he is still in jail and it has been a week.

Bookish Agrarian

writer wrote:

Footage of the initial incident: YouTube / CityTV

Thanks for posting this writer. 

Actually it speaks powerfully enough without my comments so I will edit them just to encourage people to view it (and some of the linked videos) and ask why this is new, but we all know about almost every poor choice Mr Sheppard ever made as if it had some relevance to being hit by a car.

writer writer's picture

This is the footage I link to above. And Bookish Agrarian, thank you.

HerrDoktor

writer wrote:

This is the footage I link to above. And Bookish Agrarian, thank you.

 

Geez.  Sorry Writer.  Just saw the footage and didn't check your post first.  Apologies. I wonder can we move away now from "innocent until proven guilty" into: "should he be charged with some form of murder?"

 

HerrDoktor

This[1] is a good annotated edit of the original CityTV footage which shows the first assault made on Sheppard by Bryant.  It's fairly shocking and it makes me wonder whether those who have gone to such lengths to declare Bryant "innocent until guilty" can possibly have watched any of this footage or understood it, especially when it is placed in context that Sheppard was smashed and ground to his death afterwards by the same driver.

1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFISP_PrhFo&feature=player_embedded

Cueball Cueball's picture

Gee that looks like footage of someone trying to kill someone on a bicycle with a car.

remind remind's picture

Exactly Martin.

And I agree given the footage one would think the charges should be elevated!

martin dufresne

Remind, a 87-yr old cyclist was hit by car in Montreal Sunday evening. It did make the papers even if fault hasn't been determined yet; the man is struggling for his life. I think the main elements that make a tragedy newsworthy are the same that make it criminal or not: relative level of negligence and in Bryant's case, intent in all appearance. To this we can add the disproportion between the driver and his victim: adult/child, car/bicyle, bourgeois/prole; also the denial or admission of responsibility, and finally the notoriety of either. I think that what most of us have mostly responded to here was the blatantness of the cover-up that could immediately be observed shaping up.

 

 

Cueball Cueball's picture

Attack someone with a car. Fucking dick.

writer writer's picture

Attack someone twice with your car. Till he dies. Then smear his name, using a fancy assed PR firm and its specialized little Twitter feed.

remind remind's picture

Wonder if his wife's statement matches the accident tapes? or if she got to look at them before she made it?

Pretty hard to plead your frightened of the guy when you just finished pushing him around with your car.

Quite the anniversary activity, go slumming and target some one with your Saab.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Didn't Bryant say he thought it was a "carjacking". That is how all car-jacking's start don't you know? A cyclist pulls in front of a car goading the driver into driving into him so that you can get close enough to jump into the car.

Fidel

Polunatic2 wrote:

So, from I can read, there are some who would toss out due process, presumption of innocence and the right to legal counsel all because Michael Bryant is a well known liberal. I think the class, race and gender arguments, which may (or may not) be relevant when more facts are known, are just a cover for the fact that Bryant is a liberal. 

I have to wonder if the reaction would have been the same had it been an NDP cabinet minister?

But Bryant is in no way connected to the NDP. Who Bryant is is an old line party fat-cat. And that's but one reason why people are already lining up against him. I imagine some of the damning eye witness testimonies all over the internet aren't helping this particular Cheshire cat to receive a fair trial when and if it does happen, and probably scheduled for some time so as not to distract the Liberal Party election machine.

Unionist

Cueball wrote:
Didn't Bryant say he thought it was a "carjacking".

remind wrote:
Good point cue, blatent lie on Bryant's part, ...

Funny - I haven't heard one single statement from Bryant as to what took place (other than saying he was innocent of the specific accusations). For Bryant to have lied, he would have had to say something. Got a link?

 

remind remind's picture

It is in one of the threads on this unionist, not going to look for it.

martin dufresne

remind: ...Pretty hard to plead your frightened of the guy when you just finished pushing him around with your car...

Cheeky but not that hard. The new tapes and posters' comments seem to indicate the following sequence: Sheppard pulls in front of Bryant's car at a red light. B. almost immediately moves forward, pauses, then pushes Sheppard's bike with his car for a car length. The bicycle and Shephard fall. Sheppard pulls himself up and grabs onto the car side. There can be an exchange of abuse there, which may allow B. to claim "fear" during these few seconds. B. zooms away, dragging Sheppard along who finally falls after being slammed against street furniture, and is run over. B. goes on for a few hundred meters before being either stopped by police or turning into the Hyatt parking lot by himself. Enter Navigator Ltd. and a lot of unattruibuted rumors whitewashing Bryant...

 

Unionist

remind wrote:
It is in one of the threads on this unionist, not going to look for it.

You couldn't have made a mistake on this point? When I say Bryant hasn't said one single solitary thing in public about the actual incident (other than "I'm innocent of the charges"), you recall something different?

Here's how rumours spread and become the "truth" (from [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/bryant-charged-v]Br... charged V[/url] thread). It started with Sineed:

Sineed wrote:
But today I surf around and hear the latest, that he thought he was being carjacked, and keep in mind the victim had a Criminal Record, and was Wanted in Alberta (for passing bad cheques).

No link. No one says "where did you see him say that?" Then:

farnival wrote:
at no point was "carjacking" brought up until today.  nice one Navigator!

No link. No reference. Nothing. Then:

Salsa wrote:
Is the carjacking theory the first statement we've heard from Bryant?

Good question from Salsa - but no one says "hey wait a sec, we haven't heard this or ANY statement from Bryant yet about what happened!"

So, what did Bryant actually say about carjacking or anything else?

Nothing so far. Unless someone has a link that I've missed, of course.

 

Pages

Topic locked