Charges dropped against Michael Bryant

Nothing on the bike blogs about this yet.

Shows how the "get tough on crime" agenda is about putting poor people in jail rather than actual justice.

I'm so angry I can't form a coherent thought so I'll just post links to the EIGHT threads that babble had back at the time of Bryant's deliberate reckless behaviour that killed a young man.

Part 1   Part 2   Part 3   Part 4   Part 5   Part 6   Part 7   Part 8

Fuck.

I guess it's a good thing that this sort of shit still outrages me, but still.....

How nice to be rich and well connected.

Ya, like Sheppard "smashed against a tree" himself, ffs, wonderful how Navigator works eh.....

Complicit medi too....CBC should be destroyed

From the NP article in writer's link:

Quote:

Toxicology tests on Mr. Sheppard revealed he had a blood alcohol level that was more than twice the legal limit the night he died. The cyclist’s blood alcohol level, which was measured after he died, was 0.183.

*sigh*

Has nothing to do with Bryant not taking his foot off the gas.  And nothing to do (as we said exhaustively on those threads) with the responsibility of the car driver to dial down a confrontation.

Clearly nothing can be done. The rich and connected are exempt from law. If only Jefferey Dalmer had lots of cash and friends in high places dining on children would be acceptable too.

Yeah sure. The facts. Yeah, right. And maybe the cocaine in Jaffer's car was really just a cigar.

Maybe the most salient facts are that Bryant is rich, connected, and white and he killed a delivery boy. If it was reversed, if the delivery boy riding in his 1989 Pontiac Sunbird killed Bryant on his $7,000 road bike with all other circumstances being equal, would the he be walking free as a jay bird right now? Not fucking likely.

@stockholm

anyone who has seen the video knows this was a crime, and the criminal just walked.

Notice the newspaper items still spinning this incident in the well-connected criminal's favour.

Mr. SHeppard's crime was being a poor asshole on a bike. Is that a capitol offense?

You entitled to your conspiracy theories if they make it easier for you to get up in the morning. I'm more interested in the facts.

Actually, Stockholm, you'e not interested in facts at all. If you were, you, as would any fair minded individual, support the trial that would normally follow police charges in such a case. Instead of the evidence being presented in an open court with cross-examination of witnesses, Mr. Bryant was allowed a private hearing, and an intereview with the presiding judge and jury, and all of that messy business was done away without any judicial or public oversight. How nice.

Your use of the words "conspiracy theory" to describe uncontested facts highlights your own arrogance and ignorance neither of which are strangers to you.

"Peck said in court that the decision not to pursue the case was "mine and mine alone."

This is what passes for justice in Canada.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/05/25/bryant-sheppard-charges943.html#ixzz0oy82UeVp

farnival wrote:

globe poll: Do you agree with the Crown's decision to withdraw charges...

 

feel free to express yourselves.

Thanks for this, farnival!  It's fairly evenly matched as of this writing, the Yes votes slightly edging the No votes.

My husband will be biking from Toronto to Sarnia in a couple of wks - this verdict, and the reactions on the MSM boards, don't fill me with confidence for the respect car-drivers have for bikes.

In BC we have a real Special way of doing justice.  Lawyers who donate money to the ruling party get appointed to investigate the movers and shakers from the party.  Bryant got the BC Special like Heed and others here.  For law firms it is apparent that donating to the corrupt Liberals is a very good investment leading to far more government work than the original donation amount.  This is the BC equivalent of the ads-cam.  Money in to LIberal war chests. Inflated contracts out to the law firms.  Not advertising agents out here but law firms. 

So Stockholm does this not raise any concern for you about the independence of the judiciary when politicians are investigated by people who financially supported them?

Quote:

Records reviewed by the Vancouver Sun reveal seven special prosecutors other than Terrence Robertson have donated to the B.C. Liberals or work for firms that have donated.  

Lawyer: Richard Peck

Case: Appointed in 2007 to review polygamy in Bountiful.

Donations: Peck's firm Peck & Company donated $1,000 to Liberal candidate Wally Oppal's campaign in 2005.

 http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Special+prosecutors+donated+much/2993164/story.html#ixzz0oyBU0Sxf

Stockholm wrote:

Did he give mony to the Ontario Liberals?

Are you trying to imply that no BC Liberal has any connections with any Ontario Liberal.  I see now, nothing to worry about that lawyers with ties to the same party are investigating Ontario Liberals as long as they are from out of province.  

As always it seems you have avoided the thrust of the question. Tell me do you think the practice of hiring political supporters to investigate claims against politicians is a good one? 

After Sheppard "latched onto the vehicle," it veered left and continued west in the oncoming eastbound lane. Expert analysis conducted by Crown and defence investigators determined the car was travelling in the range of 34 kilometres an hour, in contrast to eyewitness accounts that it was driving between 60 and 100 km/h.

Here is another example of inconsistency. Name one case where the Crown has extra special investigators- not the police - do an investigation on physical evidence and then over-ruled the police investigators - who are after all the experts on crime scene and traffic accident reconstruction. Something does not smell right here at all.

Peck's analysis quoted in the Vancouver Sun:

"...Bryant drove to a nearby hotel with his wife. Three minutes later he called 911. He also told a doorman that he was the victim of an assault by a cyclist, but that he had "roughed him up pretty good," the court heard..."

so...he left the scene of an accident (itself a crime), not knowing how much damage he had done, then bragged about it to the doorman.   and that's not chargeable?

wtf?

From farnival's Vancouver Sun link:

Quote:

"This has turned out to be a tale about addiction, mental health, an independent justice system and a couple out on their wedding anniversary driving home with the top down," Bryant said.

"It is not a morality play about bikes versus cars, couriers versus drivers or one about class, privilege or politics. It's just about how in 28 seconds, everything can change."

Bryant indicated he is not sure what he will do next. "I do not know what the future holds. I have bills to pay. I want to go back to work," he said.

Better if he had said nothing.

The thing is that we will never know how drunk Bryant might have been thanks to deferential police treatment for the well heeled amongst us.  Having admitted to being out and 'celebrating' the possibilty remains that Bryant was well over the limit himself.  It is probably true that there was no reasonable conviction of some of the charges thanks to very shoddy and deferential police actions, such as neglecting the basic step of a breathalyzer test.  However, careless driving should have been a very easy conviction as there is no intent component, only actions.  That this was not even pursued says a great deal about how our justice system works.  And it ain't pretty.

When Bryant hit his brakes, the vehicle stalled. Peck said Bryant was trying to get away and attempted to get his car started when it stalled again, causing it to lurch forward. That was when "Mr. Bryant's vehicle came close to or in contact with the rear wheel of Mr. Sheppard's bike," Peck said.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/crime/article/813872--prosecutor-why-charges-against-bryant-were-dropped?bn=1

This is from the Toronto Star article. It defies logic. A vehicle stalling is rare enough, especially if one is not been drinking, Bryant stalling the vehicle and then "lurching forward" and striking someone shows a complete lack of control of your vehicle or a complete falsehood.  You could only lurch forward with stalling if it was in gear - and on a modern Saab with saftey features it would be nearly impossible.  On its very face the story as reported by the special person brought in, doesn't add up, but it is clear the benefit of the doubt went to Bryant without even a trial to verify the stories. If this was any other poor working slob the book would have been tossed at them. Special treatment doesn't even come close to describing this. Bryant and Jaffer should start a get out of jail free company in their post run in with the law careers.

Argh.

....

ss atrahasis, don't use the term "douchebag" on babble. Thank you.

Apologies. Never considered. Thanks for catching. Won`t happen again.

Normally I`m pretty good at not being `sexist` that one just hopped out. I had just seen the interview over supper with Byrant, and could still taste his disingenuousness- `This is not about cars vs bikes, class and privelege or politics...`he says narily blinking or emoting.