Continued from here
Bryant charged V
Fri, 2009-09-04 08:59
#1
remind
Bryant charged V
Fri, 2009-09-04 09:45
#2
Stockholm asked why we are suddenly so Law and Order when it comes to this case.
I'm Hammurrabic about justice. The more standing someone has in society the harder they should be punished. The Greeks dressed down to go to court. The Romans have a lot to answer for.
Fri, 2009-09-04 09:56
#3
Bryant's legal team to investigate fatal crash:
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/690850
From the article:
"Did Sheppard reach inside the convertible? Did he strike Bryant? Was Bryant fearful for his wife's safety?
"From what has been said in the media, he'll likely mount a defence of necessity or self-defence," said Isenstein. "If he reasonably feared for his life or his safety or the safety of his passenger, it may have been necessary for him to commit a crime – to drive in the manner in which he did."
Investigators are usually paid on an hourly basis – $300 an hour is typical – and the job can often be completed in about 10 hours.
"That said, some can be 200 hours," he said.
Bryant's legal team will likely bring in an outside forensic engineer to review the police accident reconstruction evidence. That service can run anywhere from $5,000 to $30,000.
Sources familiar with the case said the prestigious private investigative firm King-Reed & Associates Inc. was contacted earlier this week"
No words...
Fri, 2009-09-04 10:02
#4
Fri, 2009-09-04 10:03
#5
Check this out: Bryant maybe thought it was an attempted car-jacking:
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Bryant+predicament/1960973/story.html
It was reported early on that the cyclist and driver had a verbal argument, but now there are reports that Sheppard tried to commandeer the vehicle, reaching in to grab the wheel and attack the driver.Again, the precise details are still unknown but if this was, for all intents and purposes, an attempted car-jacking, then it's hard to blame the driver for flooring it.
Fri, 2009-09-04 10:04
#6
remind
Necessary crime, eh!
Fucking sickening.
Fri, 2009-09-04 10:13
#7
This is turning into an O.J. Simpson type circus. Any chance of a civil suit against Bryant by a relative of Sheppard?
Fri, 2009-09-04 10:16
#8
remind
Perhaps someone should launch one on behalf of his children?
Fri, 2009-09-04 10:17
#9
Stockholm asked why we are suddenly so Law and Order when it comes to this case.
I'm Hammurrabic about justice. The more standing someone has in society the harder they should be punished. The Greeks dressed down to go to court. The Romans have a lot to answer for.
Your idea of justice is like this??? "If any one brings an accusation against a man, and the accused goes to the river and leaps into the river, if he sinks in the river his accuser shall take possession of his house. But if the river proves that the accused is not guilty, and he escapes unhurt, then he who had brought the accusation shall be put to death, while he who leaped into the river shall take possession of the house that had belonged to his accuser".... How progressive.
So tell me how do you define standing? Is it net worth, fame, influence or notoriety?
Fri, 2009-09-04 10:21
#10
Snert
The more standing someone has in society the harder they should be punished.
You must have been enraged when Svend Robinson escaped jail time AND escaped having a criminal record. But if you're a white male who can afford to hire Clayton Ruby...
Fri, 2009-09-04 10:22
#11
Who did Svend kill?
Fri, 2009-09-04 10:23
#12
Since none of us were there and we don't know the facts, we cannot preclude the possibility "that Sheppard tried to commandeer the vehicle, reaching in to grab the wheel and attack the driver.". Just because you don't like Bryant's politics doesn't mean that there isn't still a possibility that there were things that happened that at least partially justified his actions.
Let's wait and see what the evidence is and what the court says. In the meantime, since none of us witnessed the events first hand, what do we know?
Fri, 2009-09-04 10:33
#13
We know the system in Ontario is as corrupt as the day is long, that's what we know.
Fri, 2009-09-04 10:35
#14
One more attempt to silence us about facts that have been widely reported. That should read "What do I know?", Stockholm...
Fri, 2009-09-04 10:36
#15
remind
And it seems some want to keep it that way too tommy....
Fri, 2009-09-04 10:40
#16
We don't "know" any facts. There has been no trial. There has been no disclosure of evidence. There has been no testimony, no cross-examination. Nothing. We have not heard Bryant's account of what happened.
I'd like to see all the facts before joining the lynch mob.
Fri, 2009-09-04 10:43
#17
Snert
Who did Svend kill?
I was responding to this:
The more standing someone has in society the harder they should be punished.
It doesn't mention killing.
Fri, 2009-09-04 10:47
#18
One more attempt to silence us about facts that have been widely reported. That should read "What do I know?", Stockholm...
Which facts? That Bryant hit the cyclist and then tried to drive off? Or did the cyclist assault Bryant and tried to climb into the car when Bryant tries to flee the assault? Both have been widely reported.
Fri, 2009-09-04 10:48
#19
Obviously some people would like to be judge, jury and executioner based on rumours - rather than wait for all the facts to be presented.
Fri, 2009-09-04 10:51
#20
I'd like to see all the facts before joining the lynch mob.
Well, here's a FACT for you boyo. No one has talked about lynching poor deffenseless Bryant, so stop with the bullshit.
And here's another FACT for you mister fair and balanced, there are going to be no facts in this case. The media has made sure of that.
And here's some speculation for you-- that our system is so corrupt because we have so many syncophants of the establishment amoung us who should really know better.
Fri, 2009-09-04 10:51
#21
Snert
The only fact anyone really needs is that Bryant was a white male with privelege.
Any attempts to discuss any of the other trivialities of the case are nothing more than transparent attempts to circle the wagons to shield and protect Bryant. Even the fact that he'll get a trial, and be permitted to tell his side of the story, is proof of just how rigged the system is!!
Fri, 2009-09-04 10:52
#22
Lard Tunderin Jeezus
We don't "know" any facts. There has been no trial. There has been no disclosure of evidence. There has been no testimony, no cross-examination. Nothing. We have not heard Bryant's account of what happened.
I'd like to see all the facts before joining the lynch mob.
No, you'd like to lecture some lefties and accuse us of being a lynch mob - or hypocrites, at the very least. You and Snert have made the same snide remarks several dozen times now. It's long past time for you boys to STFU.
Fri, 2009-09-04 10:55
#23
Lard Tunderin Jeezus
The only fact that anyone really needs is that some poor bastard on a bike was pretty much deliberately killed, and the poor dead fucker is the one currently on trial in the media.
Fri, 2009-09-04 10:57
#24
Aye.
Fri, 2009-09-04 10:58
#25
And he would be alive today if he had been agressive enough to punch out Bryant instead of merely trying to stop him from driving off again...
Fri, 2009-09-04 11:05
#26
Snert
And he would be alive today if he had been agressive enough to punch out Bryant instead of merely trying to stop him from driving off again...
And then the car would safely navigate itself to the curb and slow down so Sheppard could hop off.
Or they'd both be wrapped around a lamppost.
Don't get too lost in that daydream, though, Martin.
Fri, 2009-09-04 11:11
#27
The only fact that anyone really needs is that some poor bastard on a bike was pretty much deliberately killed, and the poor dead fucker is the one currently on trial in the media.
Since everyone - almost without exception - is so fond of drawing conclusions before all the information is available, I have a question:
Why did Bryant apparently try to maim or kill Sheppard (or at least was indifferent to his survival) in broad daylight, in front of large numbers of witnesses?
Clearly, if Bryant was actually afraid or being threatened, that could explain his actions. But we have no evidence of that (at this point anyway).
Anyone have a plausible (i.e. rational) best guess on why he did this?
Fri, 2009-09-04 11:14
#28
Is it that implausible to you that he became irrational at the idea of being held accountable for the accident?
Fri, 2009-09-04 11:16
#29
And then the car would safely navigate itself to the curb and slow down so Sheppard could hop off.
The car was stopped when Sheppard and Bryant had the confrontation.
Fri, 2009-09-04 11:19
#30
Snert
Ah. I misunderstood.
Your idea is super. If someone doesn't want to talk to you and you're really mad at them, "punch them out". Excellent, martin, excellent.
Fri, 2009-09-04 11:23
#31
Is it that implausible to you that he became irrational at the idea of being held accountable for the accident?
Yeah, it is. Very weak and unlikely explanation. Minor accidents happen a thousand times a day. Road rage and irrationality are unfortunately common too. But people (whether you or I or ex-Attorneys General) don't drive off and then kill the witnesses very often, just to avoid the inconvenience of making out an accident report or seeing their insurance rates go up or avoiding payment of a deductible - was that what motivated Bryant and drove him batty? Yeah, martin, that would qualify as the [b]least likely explanation[/b] in my book, absent some pretty compelling evidence and ruling out all other explanations first.
Fri, 2009-09-04 11:24
#32
We don't "know" any facts. There has been no trial. There has been no disclosure of evidence. There has been no testimony, no cross-examination. Nothing. We have not heard Bryant's account of what happened.
I'd like to see all the facts before joining the lynch mob.
No, you'd like to lecture some lefties and accuse us of being a lynch mob - or hypocrites, at the very least. You and Snert have made the same snide remarks several dozen times now. It's long past time for you boys to STFU.
I've only made three posts. The first one drawing attention to Martin's advocacy for the defacing of private property, the second questioning jrootham's assertion that people with "standing" should be treated differently without defining how "standing" is determined and why that's something to be desired and finally Martin, again, for selectively interpreting reports and claiming them as facts.
I want to know if Bryant tried to leave the scene of an accident and that Sheppard tried to stop him or did Bryant drive off because Sheppard was assaulting him and that Bryant tried to flee the assault. The fact is nobody here can answer that question and the most likely answer will be determined at trial.
Innocent until proven guilty. It's not a perfect system but it's the best we have.
Fri, 2009-09-04 11:25
#33
Why did Bryant apparently try to maim or kill Sheppard (or at least was indifferent to his survival) in broad daylight, in front of large numbers of witnesses?
Clearly, if Bryant was actually afraid or being threatened, that could explain his actions. But we have no evidence of that (at this point anyway).
Anyone have a plausible (i.e. rational) best guess on why he did this?
It's entirely possible that when Sheppard jumped onto the side of the car, he grabbed the wheel and pulled it towards himself, steering the car into the eastbound lanes.
What I object to is the emphasis on what Sheppard did rather than what Bryant did: press the accelerator. And not stop.
Fri, 2009-09-04 11:30
#34
Why did Bryant apparently try to maim or kill Sheppard (or at least was indifferent to his survival) in broad daylight, in front of large numbers of witnesses?
Forgot to add, it wasn't broad daylight, but 10 o'clock at night.
Fri, 2009-09-04 11:33
#35
Snert
Anyone have a plausible (i.e. rational) best guess on why he did this?
WHITE MALE PRIVELEGE!!1!
Fri, 2009-09-04 11:34
#36
Why did Bryant apparently try to maim or kill Sheppard (or at least was indifferent to his survival) in broad daylight, in front of large numbers of witnesses?
Forgot to add, it wasn't broad daylight, but 10 o'clock at night.
It was an expression - poor choice of words perhaps. I meant "in full view". Do you have a guess as to why he accelerated rather than stopping?
Fri, 2009-09-04 11:35
#37
I have a theory for Bryant's behaviour. It was his 12 anniversary. Maybe he and his wife are a more "fun" couple than we imagine. He might have said "hey honey, let's celebrate by finding a cyclist to run over and kill - just for the fun of it".
Fri, 2009-09-04 11:37
#38
writer
[removed because the point has been made]
Fri, 2009-09-04 11:37
#39
Lard Tunderin Jeezus
What I object to is the emphasis on what Sheppard did rather than what Bryant did: press the accelerator. And not stop.
Exactly, Sineed.
Putting not only Sheppard, but bystanders and oncoming traffic at risk. All because Bryant wasn't willing to face a man whom he'd struck with his vehicle.
Fri, 2009-09-04 11:41
#40
Lard Tunderin Jeezus
It was an expression - poor choice of words perhaps. I meant "in full view". Do you have a guess as to why he accelerated rather than stopping?
Undoubtedly because Sheppard pinned his foot to the gas pedal with his elbow as he steered the car into oncoming traffic. That's what the next CTV re-enactment is bound to indicate, isn't it?
Fri, 2009-09-04 11:45
#41
I have been meaning to mention this but it has been apparent to me from the get-go that the meta-understanding underlying this "discussion" is that Bryant did something that induces in some cognitive dissonance, inconsistence with our beliefs. He acted contrary to Whites' idea of a white privileged male pillar of society, and this is why people like Unionist are attempting to leverage this prejudice most of us entertain, in order to make it an actual defence of what Bryant did. he "couldn't" have done it because it's "not rational" and such men are a priori rational beings. Bwahahahaha...
By that standard no White privileged male ever beats his wife. (He waits and hires an attorney to do it in Court.)
Fri, 2009-09-04 11:46
#42
Do you have a guess as to why he accelerated rather than stopping?
On one of the previous incarnations of this thread, LTJ linked to info showing Bryant had done some boxing, and some other stuff showing an aggressive temperament; basically, shedding serious skepticism on the theory that Bryant was afraid of this guy.
I believe he drove off out of pugnacity rather than fear. 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).
Fri, 2009-09-04 11:47
#43
I have been meaning to mention this but it has been apparent to me from the get-go that the meta-understanding underlying this "discussion" is that Bryant did something that induces in some cognitive dissonance, inconsistence with our beliefs. He acted contrary to Whites' idea of a white privileged male pillar of society, and this is why people like Unionist are attempting to leverage this prejudice most of us entertain, in order to make it an actual defence of what Bryant did. he "couldn't" have done it because it's "not rational" and such men are a priori rational beings. Bwahahahaha...
By that standard no White privileged male ever beats his wife. (He waits and hires an attorney to do it in Court.)
Good grief. have you any idea what a parody you are of yourself??
Fri, 2009-09-04 11:52
#44
All because Bryant wasn't willing to face a man whom he'd struck with his vehicle.
LTJ, with great respect, that's an implausible, weak explanation. Yet it's the only one I've heard to date. Because of how our criminal justice system works, we may never hear Bryant's or Abramovich's account (if he doesn't testify or if he cops a plea). That's why I am sincerely interested in how babblers see this, apart from prejudicial hypotheses about the proclivity of white wealthy males to murder anyone who causes them a slight nuisance.
Instead of coming up with hypotheses about Bryant's movites, some babblers prefer to analyze other babblers' motives. It makes for such a pleasant discussion atmosphere. Example:
He acted contrary to Whites' idea of a white privileged male pillar of socierty, and this is why people like Unionist are attempting to leverage this prejudice most of us entertain, in order to make it an actual defence of what Bryant did. he "couldn't" have done it, it's "not rational". Bwahahahaha...
Fri, 2009-09-04 11:54
#45
So martin, what am I supposed to do now... analyse your motives for the viewpoint you're taking? Maybe insult you and beat you around a bit verbally? Sorry friend, I can't do that. I only wish you wouldn't either.
Fri, 2009-09-04 11:56
#46
To clarify: I believe he drove off because he was pissed off. But the PR firm he hired is trying to sell the idea that he panicked out of fear of what this maniac might do next.
Fri, 2009-09-04 11:57
#47
Lard Tunderin Jeezus
LTJ, with great respect, that's an implausible, weak explanation.
Care to explain why? Or to perhaps posit a more plausible alternative?
Fri, 2009-09-04 11:58
#48
Frustrated Mess
The entire white wing establishment is circling the wagons around one of their own. How nice.
Fri, 2009-09-04 11:59
#49
Lard Tunderin Jeezus
Good grief. have you any idea what a parody you are of yourself??
Now there's a pot & kettle situation!
Fri, 2009-09-04 12:01
#50
Unionist wrote:
Why did Bryant apparently try to maim or kill Sheppard (or at least was indifferent to his survival) in broad daylight, in front of large numbers of witnesses?
Clearly, if Bryant was actually afraid or being threatened, that could explain his actions. But we have no evidence of that (at this point anyway).
Anyone have a plausible (i.e. rational) best guess on why he did this?
(...)people (whether you or I or ex-Attorneys General) don't drive off and then kill the witnesses very often, just to avoid the inconvenience of making out an accident report or seeing their insurance rates go up or avoiding payment of a deductible - was that what motivated Bryant and drove him batty?
(...)Do you have a guess as to why he accelerated rather than stopping? (...) That's why I am sincerely interested in how babblers see this (...)
All this without payment? 
I am not suggesting you can swing it, Unionist, but shouldn't the best entry in your little exercise get at least a plaque from Navigator, Ltd?
Fri, 2009-09-04 12:02
#51
Snert
But the PR firm he hired is trying to sell the idea that he panicked out of fear of what this maniac might do next.
What's to sell? I think the idea of being fearful when an angry person is persistently clinging to the outside of your car at 90kph is likely to resonate with the public. Shockingly, few people are going to say "If I had been driving, I would have pulled over immediately and accepted my righteous beating for being rich and white and allowing my car to get hit by a bike!"