Wednesday’s Headlines

18 comments

1. Michael Bryant case:

   I would not be surprised if this happened in the country I came from, but I thought Canada was different, where law applied equally to everyone, and human life was valued regardless of social status. Guess I should have known better.

2. I feel Michael Bryant decision was the correct one. He felt he was under attack. It’s easy to sit around and think what he might had done better, but in those 30 second of panic its hard to say what any of us would do.

   If someone was holding on to your bicycle trying to get you, would you’re first instinct be to stop or try to get them off and get away?

3. The narrative presented by Bryant’s defense team and repeated in yesterday’s Star article has a lot of what seems to me to be conjecture, opinion, and extraneous hearsay. I don’t understand what exactly happened, but at least the (youtube) video evidence provides an unequivocal order of events:

   0:00 – Clip begins
   0:08 – Sheppard cuts in front of Bryant at red light.
   0:12 – Bryant surges car at Sheppard. Sheppard does not move.
   0:18 – Bryant accelerates into Sheppard, throwing him on the hood/windshield for at least two car lengths.
   0:20 – Bryant brakes, dumping Sheppard onto street (technically, making him a pedestrian).
   0:23 – Bryant shifts into reverse, backs up 3/4 car length. Sheppard still lying on street.
   0:26 – Bryant turns, accelerates around (now standing) Sheppard.
   0:30 – Bryant’s car accelerates out of camera view (no brake lights) – Sheppard not visible after car passes in front of him.

   Now, contrast it with the Star article’s version of events.

   First of all it confuses the order of events by beginning in the middle of the altercation, with Sheppard “latching onto” Bryant’s car.

   Second, when going through the events, Bryant’s version of events is presented verbatim, with him as a passive victim. *The car* stalls. *It* lurches forward. *It* accelerates into Sheppard. The only thing Bryant does is (compassionately) hit the brakes.

   Third, the article describes that Sheppard ‘stood up’ and ‘did not appear to be seriously injured’ *before* Bryant reversed. This is not true – Bryant reversed before Sheppard even picked himself off the pavement.

   Fourthly, the three seconds between Sheppard regaining his feet and Bryant accelerating past him are stretched out. Sheppard has time to throw his backpack, and the car (passive voice again) has time to respond by “driving away”.

   As for traveling at a maximum 34 km/h, the video shows nothing and I can’t contradict the forensics team.

   I’m surprised to hear Bryant’s claim of ‘re-starting a stalled car’ accepted without corroboration. In the video the headlights don’t dim, and unlike 1980s American beaters, all manual cars have ignition interlocks that stop the engine turning over unless the clutch is fully depressed.

   Sounds like nobody wanted Bryant to be prosecuted… he’s a capable guy who’s not a danger to society. Very practical. Maybe we should change the courts’ name to “The Practical System”.

4. The decision to let Bryant off is based upon character assassination and circumstantial evidence.

   What’s most galling is that I heard a commentator on CBC today say that this might actually help his political career.

5. I find it really interesting that the prevailing wisdom seems to be that one cannot be complicit in their own death. Or rather, that in a encounter between two parties where one party is killed, the living party must be responsible. 

   Second thing I find interesting is Yvonne Bambrick saying that a trial would have brought more transparency to the details of the case. How many more details about this exchange could be we learn? Wasn’t the case dropped because the Crown was satisfied that all of the case’s rocks have been overturned and in doing so, the case was found wanting? So far I haven’t read a compliant from the detectives about how the investigation was handled either by the Crown or the defense team. I fail to see what’s missing here or what a trial would have revealed that wasn’t revealed in the Crown’s decision.

6. Josh,

   not that one cannot be complicit in their own death. In this case, Sheppard’s own action was definitely responsible for the event, partially. But is Bryant so clean that even a trial is not necessary?

   > because the Crown was satisfied that all of the case’s rocks have been overturned and in doing so, the case was found wanting? So far I haven’t read a compliant from the detectives about how the investigation was handled either by the Crown or the defense team…

   Isn’t that the problem here? Nobody (in the system) seems to be pressing for a trial? I have not heard your response to Antony’s interpretation of the video? What makes Crown so confident that the defence’s version of account is more believable than versions’ like Antony’s? So much so we don’t even need a trial to decide?

7. It does seem (to me) that Sheppard had a death wish. However, as Antony pointed out, there are inconsistencies between the story being told and the video evidence. If this unfortunate incident had involved a driver that wasn’t so high-profile and so well-connected, I suspect the case would have gone to trial in order to explore these inconsistencies and ensure that justice would be served. At the very least, some lesser manslaughter charge probably would have been the result (pure conjecture here).

8. By making Darcy a poster boy some cyclists have actually harmed the cause by re-enforcing the stereotype of aggressive asshole cyclists. The issue here is mental illness and violence and anybody who says they would not have panicked when confronted by an angry Darcy (look at the other photos) jumping onto them is not being honest.

   Darcy had a tough life from day one it seems and was destined to meet some kind of terrible end the way he was going. Its too bad that nobody was able to help him, but in the end his death had nothing to do with cycling and everything to do with his own actions and the panic they created.

9. Re: Antony

   Link to the video? Seeing that charges were laid, I was interested to learn what, if anything, the media wasn’t reporting on in a court of law.

   Also, if it makes any of you guys feel better, there is a good chance that his family and/or next-to-kin will win a civil case, if they choose to pursue one (thus causing his insurance to skyrocket to a point where he will no longer be driving an Audi, to say the least…)

10. Thank you to Antony and Crimson Class for providing some perspective. And shame on the Star for its obviously biased reporting. Even though I am a cyclist and a skeptic I was swayed against Sheppard by local news media stories. Obviously, they have done a very poor job.

    It is clear that Bryant used his car to attack Sheppard first. He was the aggressor. Early reports mentioned Bryant had been dining out. Was he given a breathalyzer test? He probably had drinks or wine with his dinner – no doubt expense accounted.

    Makes you wonder about our justice system in general. Bryant should be in jail right now. Shame.

11. Obviously, he killed the cyclist and any “evidence” presented is just a fabrication. I mean, come on, who died ? The cyclist did, so the driver, who survived, must be guilty ! What a miscarriage of justice.

    The fact that he was intoxicated, that he has acted strongly against other drivers is not important here. Bryant should have just got out of his car and faced it like a man ! Let’s protest Queen’s Park !

12. Some enterprising guerilla journalist should look into Bryant’s expense accounts with Invest Toronto, which is a City of Toronto agency he headed at the time of the incident.

13. Was Sheppard wearing a helmet?

14. It seems totally insane to me that this is the end of the matter, legally speaking, for Bryant. The person who opened a car door on Eglinton without checking for cyclists, and caused a cyclist to swerve around the door and into traffic where he was hit and killed, was fined $110.

15. “It is clear that Bryant used his car to attack Sheppard first.”

    Bryant claimed he was trying to restart his stalled manual transmission vehicle.

    I may have too much faith in humanity, I think that incompetence with manual transmission vehicles is more common then the desire to run over cyclists.

    Even if Bryant attacked Sheppard I doubt that gives Bryant the right to attack him. Even if does, Sheppard would still have the right to defend himself.

16. C Ng, there is no helmet law for adults in Ontario. Places with cycling-friendly cultures have an extremely low helmet use rate (mostly on babies strapped on to bicycles) and no helmet laws. Trust me, I travel to Amsterdam every year for work. The latter exist to discourage cycling, and let cars off the hook.

    The fact remains that the death was caused by a CAR. A fight between two unarmed guys on foot or on bicycle would have been highly unlikely to have caused a fatality.

17. A helmet may not be really necessary for riding an bicycle, but I think most people would agree it is needed if you are going to be grabbing on to the side of a moving car.

18. Darwin said it perfectly…if you’re the kind of person who thinks the correct response to a situation (malicious or otherwise) is to react violently, then the proper personal protective equipment is essential.