Continued from here
http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/bryant-charged-iii
Bryant Charged IV
Thu, 2009-09-03 09:47
#1
remind
Bryant Charged IV
Thu, 2009-09-03 10:09
#2
Unionist-- regarding your last post in the previous thread-- I already said all that upthread. Doesn't look like we are not on the same page but you may be reading something out of context.
The main issue seems to be people confusing mens rea which requires intent to do something with specific intent to cause the damage inflicted which is required for a murder charge. You have to be criminally guilty of something (intending the the actus reus if you wish) for manslaughter but that does not include intending the person to die since then that would be at least second degree murder. There is no requirement that he intended to cause death or even that he knew death was likely to be found guilty of manslaughter-- just that he knew that what he was doing was dangerous-- or even that he was aware of what he was doing. To use another analogy-- if someone grabs your hand while it is holding a knife and plunges it into your neighbour-- then in your case there is no mens rea-- no intent to the action at all. In that case there would be no manslaughter conviction either.
In any case-- some of what is coming out is looking more like second degree murder-- where there was intent to seriously harm or kill.To do what he did seems already to be at least manslaughter since he knew what he was doing was dangerous but now we are talking of a more serious intent than towards the action-- one of harm to the person.
For him to say he is not guilty of any criminal charge with his experience as AG is pretty wild. The main question at this point seems to be which of the serious criminal charges he could be hit with is he actually guilty of, and the ones laid so far appear to be the minimum-- for the sake of care I am saying "seems" and 'looks like" since obviously this is not a court of law.
There is no connection between his political party and his behaviour and I agree it is disgusting to infer one.
Thu, 2009-09-03 10:12
#3
If one good thing comes out of this - I am not holding my breath waiting for a conviction of Bryant - it will be that more people will realize the justice system's licence in charging some accused - the privileged - with the very least they can - and then rushing to plea-bargain a settlement over even reduced charges. This excessive licence is a bloody shame, and its cover-up a matter of public relations by not only Bryant's PR firm but all the editorialists we already see wringing their hands about "a career in tatters".
Thu, 2009-09-03 10:32
#4
Unionist - see post 100 of last thread.
Thu, 2009-09-03 11:15
#5
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/video/new-surveillance-footage-in-bryant-...
Shame this is being cast as the actions of a hothead causing his own death by jumping on the car, pulling the wheel such that it points the car to the far side of the road. We've got an unsafe situation for bikes on the streets of Toronto. Every time a tragedy happens, and it becomes no more than a matter of personal responsibility, the status quo is supported.
Thu, 2009-09-03 11:19
#6
remind
Too bad everyone couldn't hire PR firms to manage their public image after being charged with a crime!
Thu, 2009-09-03 11:19
#7
Snert
To be fair, this wasn't exactly a bicycle safety death.
Thu, 2009-09-03 11:24
#8
writer
Richard Peck
- Vancouver Silver Gloves Boxing Champion (1971)
- He graduated from the University of British Columbia Faculty of Law in 1974, was called to the Bar of British Columbia in 1975 and is also a member of the Yukon bar.
(CV of Richard Peck, QC – Taman Inquiry)
- Special Prosecutor Richard Peck, speaking at the Taman Inquiry, answering questions about another special prosecutor in another case. A special prosecutor who was normally a defence lawyer. Read. Weep. (http://www.ngnews.ca/index.cfm?sid=158585&sc=503)
Michael Bryant
- Raised in the Greater Victoria area of BC
- Father, Ray, was mayor of Esquimalt in the late 60s
- Received a Bachelor of Arts degree from UBC in 1988, and a Master's from the same institution in 1989
- ... a man who's been a boxer since the age of 10 in Victoria, B.C. “I loved it from the start. It didn't matter how big you were, you could get in the ring and compete against people your own size. Plus, it's pretty primal. And it also assisted in giving people the wrong impression that they better not mess with me – which, mercifully, was rarely tested.” (Globe and Mail)
- His father, a lawyer as well, was mayor of Esquimalt, B.C., and much of Michael's intellectual development as an undergraduate at the University of British Columbia and later as a law student was shaped by the struggle for aboriginal rights ... (Globe and Mail)
- Political Heroes: His father, Ray Bryant, and his grandfather, James Bryant, a mayor and a municipal council member, who turned vacant lots into community centres, and garbage dumps into parks. (Toronto Star)
Ray Bryant
- Esquimalt Mayor Ray Bryant and Police Chief James Smart receive award from Canadian Highway Safety Council. -- [ca. 1966]. -- 1 print and 1 negative. (http://www.victoria.ca/archives/archives_prvrec_john3_itemlist.shtml)
Thu, 2009-09-03 11:40
#9
Too bad everyone couldn't hire PR firms to manage their public image after being charged with a crime!
Other than the bike safety message, that's PRECISELY the point I was making (if rather indirectly :-)
It's true that both guys lost their tempers. But speaking as a cyclist and a (very occasional) car driver, the motorist has to take the moral high road in these sorts of confrontations due to the potential lethality of their vehicle.
Thu, 2009-09-03 11:43
#10
Why is no one talking about the fact he was riding his bike drunk? I feel very bad for his death, but talk about needing to take responsibility for your actions. And the police should have stopped him instead of encouraging him to bike home.
Thu, 2009-09-03 11:44
#11
writer
Olly, didn't know you are at the front of the line when the toxicology report came in. What are the specifics?
Thu, 2009-09-03 11:48
#12
writer
Also eager to see details of the toxicology report for Bryant.
Thu, 2009-09-03 11:49
#13
It's true that both guys lost their tempers. But speaking as a cyclist and a (very occasional) car driver, the motorist has to take the moral high road in these sorts of confrontations due to the potential lethality of their vehicle.
I agree. Bryant should have just driven away and avoided the confrontation.
Oh, wait.....
Thu, 2009-09-03 11:51
#14
Also eager to see details of the toxicology report for Bryant.
Wonder if we'll get to see that, or if it will be shut down like the comments section of the Globe and Mail for "legal" reasons.
Thu, 2009-09-03 12:00
#15
I agree. Bryant should have just driven away and avoided the confrontation.
Oh, wait.....
There was initially a minor collision between bike and car (not clear yet who ran into whom). By driving away, Bryant provoked a confrontation.
Some years ago, a bike ran into the side of my mom's car as I was pulling out onto Sheppard Ave. It was night, the cyclist was wearing black, he had no light on his bike, and he was going the wrong way down Sheppard. I stopped.
Cyclist (enraged): "You didn't look!"
Me: "Sorry. You ok? Your bike ok?"
Cyclist (calming down): "You should look!"
Me: "Sorry."
And we continued on. Obviously, the guy was not riding safe, but I was in the car.
Thu, 2009-09-03 12:09
#16
By driving away, Bryant provoked a confrontation.
You don't know that, and the information presented so far doesn't support that.
Toronto 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.
...
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.
Based on the above, Sheppard began the confrontation by using physical force (slamming bag on hood of car). The confrontation escalated (jawing at eachother). Bryant tried to end the confrontation (driving away).
So the confrontation was not provoked by driving away. It was an ongoing event that Bryant was trying to end.
Thu, 2009-09-03 12:15
#17
"Olly, didn't know you are at the front of the line when the toxicology report came in. What are the specifics?"
No, I don't have that. But 90% of what is being said here has no shred of fact, so why should that matter? His girlfriend on tv last night said she was mad at the police for letting him ride home drunk. His friends also didn't think he should bike home according to the Star article. From that I think it can reasonably be said he was drunk.
Thu, 2009-09-03 12:16
#18
Now the scientific community is putting their spin on the incident:
Brain Rage System Cuts Rational Response
Maybe Bryant's legal team will do a reprisal of the Dan White 'twinkie defense' in the Harvey milk assassination case.
Thu, 2009-09-03 12:21
#19
Lard Tunderin Jeezus
The very fact that Sheppard pursued on foot indicates to me that his bike was likely damaged.
Video footage I saw this morning for the first time seemed to show that Bryant pulled out as Sheppard was passing his vehicle parked at the curb.
Edited to add: in response to Heywood
Thu, 2009-09-03 12:24
#20
Catchfire
Well, that Globe video should satisfy the brave contingent defending Bryant's actions that they needn't waste their breath: corporate media and communications can adequately fulfill that job alone.
It seems to me that the actual 'case' as a point of interest is nearly irrelevant now. The incident has gained so much traction, galvanized so much public incentive, that what is at stake is no longer 'justice' for Sheppard or Bryant, but the intractable situation we find in the traffic of our cities. I can say for me personally that as a cyclist who has been intentionally sideswiped by cars because they thought I was riding on the wrong side of a one-way street, aggressively berated for not wearing a helmet or for simply riding in the first place, and simply ignored on many other occasions, leading to accident and injury, that I'm not sure my anger has anything to do with the general injustice of our system of law (i.e. Bryant's 'soft touch' treatment) or national media (Sheppard's extraneous vilification). Those are serious issues, of course, but red herrings, in my opinion, to what is at stake here. I'm not sure what level of provocation will need surface before I think that Bryant acted appropriately, but I can say, honestly, that I can't see me in a spirit of reconciliation any time soon.
For me, what is at stake, notwithstanding the particularities of the case with regards to class, privilege, due process and fairness, is a political struggle. When I get on my Raleigh ten-speed, it is a political act. I am saying urban space should be designed differently, I am saying we need to make better personal choices about how we live, I am saying that the personal insulation the car's windows and doors enact is anti-social. I am saying a lot. And boy, is it an uphill struggle (sometimes literally!). The staus quo subsidizes highways instead of bike paths and public transit, it buys out failing auto industries without progressive vision, and it ignores environmental impetus in favour of disastrous industrial projects in the name of Big Oil. This is frustrating, of course, but it doesn't incite as much fervour as the Bryant case does. For me, Bryant's actions embody what I risk every time I get on my bicyle. I feel it, every time. It's palpable. And it's fatal. Not because I don't wear a helmet or because I don't follow traffic regulations, it's because I can feel the divide between car culture and myself. Bryant killed Darcy Sheppard. He killed him. And its an act of violence that I recognize everytime I mount up in a hostile environment.
Maybe it's because I've already resigned myself, or maybe it's because I'm falling for the media's vindication fable, but I guess I don't care what happens to Bryant except on the level I feel when a criminal or falsely accused individual are convicted or absolved. But I do worry, perhaps without principle, that if Bryant is let off the hook, either altogether or with a lesser charge (which looks increasingly likely), it will justify the manifest antagonism cyclists experience on a dialy basis. It will uphold violence as a way of life, and further marginalize an increasingly frustrated and impotent contingent that feels the only way it can obtain justice, both socially and individually, is to futilely smash a luxury sports car with a bike lock as it carries you inexorably towards your death.
Thu, 2009-09-03 12:32
#21
The very fact that Sheppard pursued on foot indicates to me that his bike was likely damaged.
Video footage I saw this morning for the first time seemed to show that Bryant pulled out as Sheppard was passing his vehicle parked at the curb.
Edited to add: in response to Heywood
Do you have a link for that footage?
Thu, 2009-09-03 12:35
#22
So the confrontation was not provoked by driving away. It was an ongoing event that Bryant was trying to end.
Bullshit. The relevant point is that Bryant had no right to leave the site without giving his name and address to Sheppard after wrecking his bike and no right to speed away with Sheppard hanging on to his car, which no one denies he did.
I am totally incenseded at the CTV/Globe & Mail's manipulative dramatic "re-enactment" by reporter Tom Hayes (2:10 into the video) of unattributed "reports" that Sheppard tried to hold on to the Saab's steering wheel "forcing" Bryant into the course that killed Sheppard.
The cheque is in the mail, Tom.
Thu, 2009-09-03 12:37
#23
Bullshit. The relevant point is that Bryant had no right to leave the site without giving his name and address to Sheppard after wrecking his bike and no right to speed away with Sheppard hanging on to his car, which no one denies he did.
You don't know that Bryant did or did not give his information to Sheppard. Also, he had left the scene already when Sheppard jumped onto the car.
In all fairness though Martin, had Bryant's wife been driving then you wouldnt be objecting at all. You'd be cheering her on.
Thu, 2009-09-03 12:39
#24
remind
Oh yes, he must have been hugely intoxicated to be able to run down the street after a car and then hang on for blocks! :rolleyes:
Thu, 2009-09-03 12:40
#25
Catchfire, just curious, as a cyclist do you bike drunk?
Thu, 2009-09-03 12:42
#26
Well.......we all know that Al was hanging on to the car. And it's possible he grabbed the wheel, in which case his body weight would rotate the wheel counterclockwise, pointing the car into the opposing lanes.
That said, it could easily have been avoided. What annoys me about the media coverage is the emphasis on what Al did, rather than what Bryant didn't do, which was stop the car.
Thu, 2009-09-03 12:43
#27
In all fairness though Martin, had Bryant's wife been driving then you wouldnt be objecting at all. You'd be cheering her on.
Say what?
Thu, 2009-09-03 12:55
#28
remind
Ignore heywood, just taking a cheap shot at martin
Thu, 2009-09-03 12:55
#29
Let's face it. Bryant is the kind of guy many people on babble "love to hate". Its the perfect combo, a slick big "L" Liberal lawyer with a penchant for fancy duds etc...who looks like an overgrown Little Lord Fauntleroy. So needless to say the lynch mob mentality is in full swing. But I remember when Svend Robinson was arrested and charged with theft there was an outpouring of support for him here and endless pop psychological theories about what might explain his behaviour and everyone was bending over backwards trying to give him the benefit of the doubt.
I wonder what the tenor of the postings on babble would be if Libby Davies had been driving a convertible and bumped into a cyclist who was a rightwing redneck who started shouting racist, sexist and homophobic epithets at her and grabbed on to her car when she tried to get away from him and she did what Bryant did and killed him? Somehow i think that all the people waving pitchforks and trying to be Bryant's judge jury and executioner would suddenly undergo a total role reversal and would be trying to make excuses for what she did and would be going on and on about how sad it was that such a wonderful person made such a terrible mistake and people would be musing about how she had to have been acting in self-defence...
Thu, 2009-09-03 12:56
#30
Somehow i think that all the people waving pitchforks and trying to be Bryant's judge jury and executioner would suddenly undergo a total role reversal and would be trying to make excuses for what she did and would be going on and on about how sad it was that such a wonderful person made such a terrible mistake and people would be musing about how she had to have been acting in self-defence...
Exactly.
Thu, 2009-09-03 12:59
#31
a) Svend didn't kill anyone.
b) I can't imagine Libby Davies being unable to defuse the situation before it got to screaming insults, and if you knew her, you wouldn't be able to either.
c) Heywood, your comment about Martin was out of line.
Thu, 2009-09-03 13:01
#32
remind
agreeing with hypothetical strawmen now too, heywood?
Exactly michelle
Thu, 2009-09-03 13:05
#33
c) Heywood, your comment about Martin was out of line.
I will take this to email if you prefer but could you explain why please?
Thu, 2009-09-03 13:06
#34
Let's face it. Bryant is the kind of guy many people on babble "love to hate". Its the perfect combo, a slick big "L" Liberal lawyer with a penchant for fancy duds etc...who looks like an overgrown Little Lord Fauntleroy. So needless to say the lynch mob mentality is in full swing. But I remember when Svend Robinson was arrested and charged with theft there was an outpouring of support for him here and endless pop psychological theories about what might explain his behaviour and everyone was bending over backwards trying to give him the benefit of the doubt.
My reading of this thread is that the emotive triggers have as much, if not more, to do with cyclists vs. drivers than people's opinion of MB.
Thu, 2009-09-03 13:54
#35
Snert
Bullshit. The relevant point is that Bryant had no right to leave the site without giving his name and address to Sheppard after wrecking his bike
Do you KNOW that he wrecked his bike? Can you provide a link?
Thu, 2009-09-03 14:10
#36
Lard Tunderin Jeezus
Do you KNOW that he wrecked his bike? Can you provide a link?
No, but as I stated earlier, it can be surmised as he pursued Bryant's vehicle on foot when his bike would have been faster, and abandoning it left it open to theft.
There are many pertinent details left unknown to the publlc at this point; yet we seem to be receiving other less relevant details quite regularly, for some strange reason. For example, what is the possible reason to discuss Sheppard's bounced cheques in Edmonton??
Thu, 2009-09-03 14:11
#37
remind
Rational thought suggests he would not have run, on foot, after the vehicle if his bike was not trashed, and the dent in the side of Bryant's car from the initial impact bolsters that rational thought. A bike would hardly come out of that impact in workable condition.
Thu, 2009-09-03 14:13
#38
remind
OFFS you have got to be kiding LTJ, they are discussing his bounced cheques now?
Thu, 2009-09-03 14:16
#39
Lard Tunderin Jeezus
I only wonder whether Bryant's personally hired investigators are releasing such garbage to the media.
Thu, 2009-09-03 14:17
#40
Why is no one talking about the fact he was riding his bike drunk? I feel very bad for his death, but talk about needing to take responsibility for your actions. And the police should have stopped him instead of encouraging him to bike home.
Who said Sheppard was drunk? Accoding to Star report, his friends stated that he was not drunk when he was escorted out by police.
Thu, 2009-09-03 14:18
#41
OFFS you have got to be kiding LTJ, they are discussing his bounced cheques now?
That's been out for a while.
ETA: http://www.edmontonsun.com/news/edmonton/2009/09/03/10729291-sun.html
Thu, 2009-09-03 14:20
#42
Lard Tunderin Jeezus
That very relevant detail (Sheppard's blood alcohol level) is one of the one's being withheld from the public.
Thu, 2009-09-03 14:23
#43
I wonder what the tenor of the postings on babble would be if Libby Davies had been driving a convertible and bumped into a cyclist who was a rightwing redneck who started shouting racist, sexist and homophobic epithets at her and grabbed on to her car when she tried to get away from him and she did what Bryant did and killed him?
I don't recall reading anywhere about Sheppard shouting any racist or sexist or even insults at Bryant. There has been reports of Bryant shouting at Sheppard though.
Also, Bryant is not a right wing redneck that you now bring Libby Davis as counterexample. Both of them are the same in that they are privileged officials who will get VIP treatment in such scenarios. My reaction would have been the same.
Thu, 2009-09-03 14:23
#44
Who said Sheppard was drunk? Accoding to Star report, his friends stated that he was not drunk when he was escorted out by police.
One of the cbc.ca video clips (sorry, can't remember which one) showed a friend of Sheppard's saying that he was drunk.
ETA: If true, I can't imagine he was that drunk. Riding a bike takes a fair degree of coordination.
Thu, 2009-09-03 14:29
#45
That very relevant detail (Sheppard's blood alcohol level) is one of the one's being withheld from the public.
It has been stated that the autopsy report could not be handed in before several weeks.
As for Bryant's alcohol level, it doesn't seem to be part of the picture, even though he is the accused... Whether a breathalyzer test was requested, administered, and whether Bryant resisted such a test - without being charged - will all be elements in demonstrating the extent of the corruption of justice involved. Meanwhile we have had a police statement that "alcohol was not involved" in Bryant's case and an unattributed report in some media that B. had had no alcohol at dinner. Spin, spin, spin...
Thu, 2009-09-03 14:30
#46
Lard Tunderin Jeezus
There seems to be some consensus that Sheppard had alcohol problems, and had had a drink after a week or two of sobriety. That he had been drinking at all was the reason his girlfriend did not initially want him around from police reports. Whether or not he was legally intoxicated is in dispute, with his girlfriend maintaining he was, the police stating he wasn't, and various friends contradicting each other.
There is also an hour's lag time unaccounted for, in which period he might have sobered up further, or sought another drink. No one knows except the people doing the autopsy, presumably.
Thu, 2009-09-03 14:37
#47
If someone wanted to prove that Bryant had been drinking all you would have to do would be to find out what restaurant he was coming from where he and his wife had dinner and ask the staff if he had any drinks and get a copy of the bill.
Thu, 2009-09-03 14:40
#48
I only wonder whether Bryant's personally hired investigators are releasing such garbage to the media.
I wonder that too. Every time I hear some new irrelevant smear about Sheppard, I think, "Bryant's PR flacks earning their keep."
Thu, 2009-09-03 14:52
#49
Cueball
As I said before, there are (at least) two different ways to commit manslaughter (one of them being through criminal negligence) because things are added to the Code over time (like criminal negligence in 1955) and Parliament rarely bothers to amend previous sections to reflect that. It is an additive process.
Yeah, and I agreed all along. You are the one who is putting it about that I was saying that "intent" was fundamental to a manslaughter charge. I never did. What I said is that a "reduced murder" is a manslaughter charge that includes "intent", usually the immediate intent to cause the act that harms the victim when there are mitigating factors, such as that the victim was engaged in an altercation with the accused, and the accused unecessary force, was angered and so on and so forth.
In any case, even if a "criminal negligence" charge is also a "manslaughter" charge they are indeed two different crimes. Both can carry the same sentence, however, "criminal negligence" is not viewed by the courts as a charge that is as serious as a reduced "murder charge". It can be applied at the same level as a true "manslaughter" charge, but it is not, largely because the charge itself already has its excuse built into it: It was not deliberate.
I think if you look at the sentencing for those who are charged with manslaughter in the form of a "reduced murder" charge, ancilliary to "murder" and manslaughter charges that are based in "criminal negligence" you will see there is a vast difference in how they are treated in sentencing.
"Criminal negligence" is a manslaughter charge, to a lesser degree than a manslaughter charge.
I have seen two witnesses on camera now stating flat out that it appeared that Bryant was deliberately trying to dislodge Sheppard from the side of his vehicle by causing him to hit objects at high speed. One even testifying that he was driving at at least 90 KMH. Those facts speak for themselves, in terms of what the basis of the charge should be.
Thu, 2009-09-03 14:54
#50
If someone wanted to prove that Bryant had been drinking all you would have to do would be to find out what restaurant he was coming from where he and his wife had dinner and ask the staff if he had any drinks and get a copy of the bill.
Apparently they had a couple of shawarmas and some iced tea.
Thu, 2009-09-03 15:01
#51
Cueball
Great. So we know that Bryant should have been fully cognizant of his actions while he was racing down Bloor street and was most likely to be aware that ramming someone into a newspaper box at 90 kmh was likely to cause serious harm. He should have been in full control of his capacities, and could have halted the vehicle if he chose too.