Bryant Charged II

Now come on Tommy_Paine, don't you know that cars rule. Vehilces are kinda like our aristocracy. But don't you think it's time for bicyclists to storm the Bastille, er, I mean the Burrard Bridge. And actually I'm keeping my kayak handy for when the big one hits. Paddling will probably be the only way to get around the Lower Mainland. 

RevolutionPlease wrote:

I'll take the word of a cop over Christie Blechford.  And I hate cops.

Quote:
Officers arrived and escorted him away, said Const. Tony Vella, adding there were no allegations of criminal activity such as assault and there was no indication he was intoxicated.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2009/09/01/10699946-cp.html

Ummm....I believe Constable Vella was referring to Bryant not being intoxicated. The story in the Globe is about the cyclist.

ummmm....no he was referring to the cyclist. Notice the consistency between the direct object pronoun and the subject within the same sentence.

"Police said they had contact with Sheppard barely on hour before his death, when his ex-girlfriend called police just after 9 p.m. and told them Sheppard was at her home and refused to leave.

Officers arrived and escorted him away, said Const. Tony Vella, adding there were no allegations of criminal activity such as assault and there was no indication he was intoxicated."

After reading that last thread, a bunch of you are serious jack a$$es. You should be totally emabarrassed.

I predicted that Sheppard's character would be smeared. I didn't fathom that it would be done on Babble. A new low, Snert.

Bryant will get off, and Sheppard will be blamed for his own death, with a aside on  it was the police's fault too.

Bryant will carry on, as per usual.

Classism, knows no bounds, as we can see here at babble.

A "smear" is when something is said about someone that is a lie. So far we have no reason to believe that the story about the victim having been asked to leave his ex-girlfriend's apartment and the accounts by his frineds that he had been drinking are not true. These are all material facts in the case. I suspect that Bryant will be convicted of something - whether it will be negligence causing death or a lesser charge. Of course as I recall, most people on bable are totally against mandatory minimum sentences - so don't complain if he doesn't get jail time at the discretion of the judge. The only way around that is to have a mandatory jail sentence for anyone convicted of that crime.

Not having a bail hearing is common. Its pretty obvious that the chances of him skipping town are NIL.

Since when is not having bail hearings "common" Stockholm?

It's been reported Bryant had nothing to drink that night. Which is good, as it was his government that brought in the .05% blood alcohol limit.

The shitty thing of all this is that so many decisions were made that if made differently would have changed the result. The police for letting him bike home drunk. His friends for letting him bike home drunk. Him for biking home drunk. Him and Michael Bryant for getting into an altercation. Him for going after Bryant once he drove away. Bryant for trying to dislodge him.

Sometimes shitty things happen not because someone drives a Saab and is a former AG, and someone else is a cyclist but because a series of shitty events and shitty decisions led to something shitty.

There's a pretty good chance he thought he was being attacked....not sure how I would have responded in all honesty. But to think anyone, especially a guy of his profile, was trying to kill someone that way isn't believable to me. You don't ruin your career and life that easily. He must have panicked. Or maybe pure rage. I don't know. I guarantee on sober second thought he is asking a lot of what ifs.

Olly, are you in Toronto? Are you familiar with Bloor Street? Bryant risked many lives, whether he intended to kill the man he killed or not.

He ruined his career and life that easily. Just by racing down one of Toronto's busiest, most pedestrian-filled streets the wrong way on a curb. This is the man who put stricter racing laws in place.

There are always reasons why people break the law. And pure rage gets a lot of women murdered, so it doesn't go far with me. Such "pure rage" is often linked with a sense that one's rightful place has been challenged.

Yes I'm from Toronto. I walk down that block all the time. There is definitely a potential case for self-defence. I'm not sure how rage is treated in law as I'm not a lawyer, but you're right about that last point. He clearly did not set out to do this, my point really was to say a lot of bad decisions were made that could have been totally avoided.  I find the responses of people on rabble who have no information about what actually happened passing judgment and making assumptions, invoking class warfare, etc really a$$holish.

It's appalling, but it's a moral superiority we're taught, in order to make the world understandable. And it's fucked up.

The guy was drunk on bike. We're going to absolve him of responsibility? He could have chose not to ride his bike in that state, like any drunk person can decide not to drive. That's not a class issue.

Lard Tunderin Jeezus wrote:

You're jumping to conclusions as much as anyone.

Correct!

Male? How about Anglo-Saxon and Protestant? How did gender get into this discussion?

"He had a relapse," said Jordana Maxwell, who also lives at the apartment. "He came to us, because we're his family. I said, 'Let him come back upstairs.' The officer said, 'No, he needs to go home.' I said, 'He can't make it home, he's intoxicated. He cannot ride a bike.' We begged them. They said, 'He will not go back upstairs.' And they put him on the road."

I assume he was above .05 based on that, but yeah, I can't say that for sure. Cops shouldn't have let him bike home, that's for sure.

It should also be mentioned that Sheppard's death was not a result of wreckless driving, so I don't really see how his intoxication bears any relevance to the case.

Catchfire wrote:

It should also be mentioned that Sheppard's death was not a result of wreckless driving, so I don't really see how his intoxication bears any relevance to the case.

Catchfire, it may have a bearing on how he interacted with Bryant - no?

"It should also be mentioned that Sheppard's death was not a result of wreckless driving, so I don't really see how his intoxication bears any relevance to the case."

You can't conceive of any situation where a drunk guy decides to get beligerant and go after someone he got in an altercation with? Being drunk certainly has bearing on that. According to the Star:

"By 9:45 p.m., Sheppard was cycling west along the stretch of Bloor St. W. often called the Mink Mile. After passing the intersection of Bloor and Bay Sts., Sheppard collided with Bryant's black convertible Saab.

Police would later call the accident that brought the two men together a "minor collision." Sheppard appeared unhurt. He angrily slammed his bag down on the hood of Bryant's car.

Despite the evening chill, the Saab's top was down. Sheppard and Bryant began jawing at each other. Bryant's 42-year-old wife, lawyer Susan Abramovitch, was in the passenger seat. According to witnesses, Bryant cut the argument short by pulling away. As he headed westbound on Bloor St., Sheppard chased the car on foot. He grabbed hold of the vehicle on the driver's side. It's not clear if he was trying to get into the car, get at the driver or merely prevent him from leaving.

But if the cops had stopped him in the first place, this wouldn't have happened. The crappy thing is his friends told them he couldn't ride a bike, but they sent him on his way anyway. It was probably totally against their better judgment, but when police say something you usually comply. Bryant shouldn't have escalated the situation as well by "jawing at him."

Quote:

"By 9:45 p.m., Sheppard was cycling west along the stretch of Bloor St. W. often called the Mink Mile. After passing the intersection of Bloor and Bay Sts., Sheppard collided with Bryant's black convertible Saab.

Police would later call the accident that brought the two men together a "minor collision." Sheppard appeared unhurt. He angrily slammed his bag down on the hood of Bryant's car.

This scenario doesn't ring true. Why would Sheppard have 'angrily slammed his bag' on the hood if he had been the one responsible for the collision?

remind wrote:

Because it is predominently white males who seem to building a case of self defense, or excuses, for poor Bryant.

Mostly Gentile too, I'll bet. Possibly straight.

remind wrote:

Surely unionist, and now caissa, you are not denying white male privilege, no matter the religion or sexual preferences, is a serious problem in society, and that there is ranks closing when it is threatened?

No, I don't deny it - but I think it's a strange card to play when progressive people are discussing whether there are or are not enough facts available to pronounce judgement on a horrendous event which led to the death of a young man. And name-calling babblers rarely adds to the collaborative spirit of discussion, in my recollection.

Quote:

We need only look at these threads to see who are trying to diminish this incident and make excuse, and/or attempting to ridicule voices who are pointing it out.

Well, it's better to pay attention to people's arguments in a discussion forum than try to categorize them on the basis of skin colour or sex when discussing an incident that has little to do with either. Or religion or sexual orientation, for that matter. If anything, this [b]may[/b] have a whole lot to say about deeply-ingrained class prejudice and privilege in our society. You'll have to do a whole lot better to convince me that race and gender are a factor here.

Same response to you, Maysie, on that very last sentence of mine.

Sineed wrote:

Do straight, cis-gendered white men cause more road accidents than everybody else?  If so, they should be paying higher insurance rates.

Right. We should also examine accident rates based on country of origin, sexual orientation, and monotheism vs. polytheism. You never know what the stats may reveal.

Catchfire wrote:

But his behavior, aggressive or intoxicated, should have no bearing on the 'disproportionate' response of Bryant: to try several times and in several different, increasingly dangerous methods, to severely injure and probably kill the cyclist.

I wholeheartedly agree. I'd still be interested in knowing what exactly led up to that incredibly reckless and homicidal behaviour. In fact, I'd particularly like people to suspend sentence (if not judgment) until they know a little more about the full story. And I find it tiresome when people draw conclusions about a single incident, not from the facts, but from the race, colour, sex, or financial worth of the protagonists.

Quote:

ETA: maybe we could cease the thread drift about white, straight, cisgendered, protestant men in general. Let's just all agree that they are basterds. If someone had a targeted critique with regards to masculintity, etc., in relation to this incident, well, that would be cool.

I wholeheartedly agree.