“Burrows could not explain why the driver crossed lanes of traffic and drove up onto the curb.”

129 Replies to ““Burrows could not explain why the driver crossed lanes of traffic and drove up onto the curb.””

1. Interesting story; but again, the law is clear in Canada. The minute the proprietor pursued the crook out the store onto the sidewalk and killed him, that is the act that changes the whole ballgame.
   Believe me, I am no fan of crime or criminals, but I also keenly aware of the limitations placed by law on what one can and cannot do to another person in Canada.
   The law is clear..it is the politicos that choose to prosecute or acquiesce.In Bryant’s case there was much he could have been charged with (with video evidence!) as to why the powers that be did not do so, only they can answer that.

2. Bryant is lucky he’s a Liberal. If he was a Conservative he would of been lynched by the media in the court of public opinion. Bryant, like all Liberals, and the elites in general got away with one. Sad. I feel for the Sheppard family.

3. Oz: “‘Michael James Bryant, 43 years of age, of Toronto, is now charged with criminal negligence causing death and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death,’ said Toronto police Sgt. Tim Burrows.
   “Those are the charges, batb.
   When Bryant is charged with ‘leaving the scene’ we’ll discuss that.”
   How come he wasn’t charged with leaving the scene? A man was DEAD. How come he wasn’t required to undergo a breathalizer test? I’d say this whole case was rigged from the beginning.
   The charges laid had to be proven without a doubt and I’m pretty sure it was clear they couldn’t be, largely because of Sheppard’s aggression and the fact he’d been drinking.
   We’ll never know whether or not Bryant was drinking, will we? And he can’t now be charged with leaving the scene of the accident/incident, can he, because the police didn’t seem to think that this lesser charge — which could be proven — was important.
   I think they’re wrong.

4. “At the end of the trial, a Calgary jury declared the proprietor innocent and he walked.
   True story.”
   And that’s why Bryant’s case should have been put before a judge or jury.
   I cannot reconcile what I see on that video with the fact that no charges have been laid. I cannot reconcile the time and location and magnitude of his actions with the lack of breath test.
   And they wonder why public trust in the judiciary is eroding???

5. Consider all the arguments that I have present today on this thread.
   -Sheppard’s negligence caused his bicycle to be bumped and no damage occurred
   -Sheppard flew into a rage and pressed an assault against Bryant
   -Bryant, being in an open convertible and accompanied by his wife, was attempting to flee, in terror with his wife probably screaming beside him in fear, from a man in a rage who was wearing body armour and had at hand unknown weapons(at the very least a tire pump with which to bludgeon)
   -stopping and getting out of the car were not an option because the raging man could have harmed either or both of them
   -Bryant, in the moment of terror, attempted to disable the pursuit while staying in a moving car
   -the attempt to disable the pursuit ended with the raging man’s death
   -Bryant backing over the bicycle is evidence that he was trying to disable the raging man’s bicycle and having no idea if the man was a continuing threat to himself and his wife or not, continues to flee
   -the Crown charges the “Man most likely to be Ontario’s Next Premier”
   What are the chances of a conviction by a jury?
   Keeping in mind that the Crown doesn’t go to trial if it doesn’t think it can win, what are the chances of trying the high profile publicly respected “Man most likely to be Ontario’s Next Premier” and winning?
   batb,
   Bryant wasn’t simply fleeing the scene of a road accident.
   Bryant was fleeing a raging assailant who witnesses say had threatened to kill him.
   We aren’t discussing a hit and run, we’re discussing a confrontation and the winner flees not knowing he has won and is no longer in danger.

6. kursk, jimbo
   Why does Oz get all the fun?
   Rather than accepting the possibility that Oz may have a valid view, and vigorously arguing the merits of your opinion; you instead prefer to look down your haughty noses and critique the person you disagree with. True, Oz may not be enlightened the same as you two are; but that’s beside the point. You despise his point of view so much, that you are unable to cognitively argue your own opinion on merit; even when you view has merit. The bottom-line is, nobody knows what the true intent of the cyclist was; therefore, the benefit of the doubt goes to he that is being assailed.
   The fact that the perpetrator chose to engage a famous and connected, testosterone have’n, boxing fan who likes to run his mouth is the perps own bad luck! If I understand you two correctly, it’s unfortunate that it wasn’t a little old lady in that car, else how would we know for sure what the intent of the raving lunatic hanging from the car was?
   What’s the life of one little old lady vs. the knowledge of the true intent of the cyclist?

7. Didn’t he allegedly call a PR firm from the get go? If so does that sound like a man who is feeling remorse? Sorry but he should of been charged with leaving the scene of an accident but oh well he’s a liberal.

8. Indiana Homez,
   Witnesses heard Sheppard scream that he wanted to kill Bryant.
   If someone in a rage threatened to kill me I would believe him because *disbelief is not a reasonable option.
   Bryant’s wife was beside him in that car.
   She was in peril too.
   *Back in the ’60s in the community where I lived a hippy girl in her teens who had just returned from drug rehab tried to take control of the family TV set to watch Drop In while her younger brother was already watching an Expos ballgame.
   They fought over it and she being bigger won.
   Her younger brother went down to the basement and got the .22 rifle the family had and told her if she didn’t leave he would kill her.
   She laughed at him and he shot her in the face, killing her.
   She was 19yrs old and he was 13yrs old.
   The parents were both away working at the time because they were Catholics and had 11 children.
   True story.

9. 1)I guess none of you know that the POS Micheal Bryant is an experienced boxer with over 20 years of training.
   2)The video I posted shows the POS Micheal Bryant HITTING the cyclist with his car and then backing up and driving off like nothing happenned.

10. I am most shocked by the editorial:
    “What would you have done in that situation? If Mr. Bryant were a soldier or a cop, we could expect him to have reacted with more sang-froid. But he is neither. He is a lawyer, and a former attorney-general”
    Tell me again why the judgement demanded from a Liberal Attourney-General is less than the judgement demanded of a cop?

11. Kate / batb: I’m 100% in agreement with your assessment.
    My immediate reaction: NO CHARGES AT ALL?!?
    Remember Svend Robinson: stole $80,000. Not even a fine!!. Not long ago I paid a $300 fine at a 4-way stop in Lake Louise after failing to fully stop after having been fully stopped just behind another vehicle. No vehicles at or anywhere near the other 3 stop signs which I surveyed carefully. A technical infraction to be sure, but clearly a warning situation, not a $300 ticket.
    Explain to me how Bryant can be looking backward for a gap in traffic to merge into and looking forward to see a cyclist, that shouldn’t be there
    – Oz.
    As a extremely safety conscious motorcyclist (and a way better driver since I took up riding), I must strongly disagree with you here: to move your vehicle ahead while looking back, is BAD BAD BAD. You look back, make an assessment, then look ahead and then drive forward.
    As an aside, one of the many joys I’ve experienced since taking up riding 11 years ago, is that I just don’t do ROAD RAGE anymore at all (I was once quite a hot-head). The inherently higher risk of riding taught me to not go out on the road wanting to me RIGHT about stuff. Rather than experience anger when other drivers act poorly, I pride myself in having anticipated the jerk’s behaviour and taken evasive action.
    Even stone-cold-sober, the worst road ragers I’ve ever seen are bicyclists. They live on a higher moral plane; they’re saving the planet; they’re imbued with a feeling of righteousness; they’re generally lawless!

12. Indiana..that is your opinion of my thoughts. It is only what you ascribe to them. If you feel my opinion is haughty, so what. I could say your posts reek of keyboard inspired testosterone, telling us all what you would do in a given situation. The reality is, in this particular situation, a man is dead.
    I have an opinion as well, it is carefully considered. I feel I have stated it well. You feel it is not ‘cognitively stated’. Why should we argue a point that should be self evident? You also say that we will never know many things about what the true motives of the dead man were. That is true. In saying that, you would then have me take the words of Bryant as being 100% gospel. I don’t believe a word he says.
    I have seen plenty of death and destruction in my time. If I feel that this one particular death is disturbing, I will say so.
    If that video doesn’t make you think twice (especially the update) than you are just arguing for argument’s sake.For all your rhetoric, a man is still dead.Bryant dodged a bullet, and he should thank whatever deity he prays to. He will never again be as lucky as he was today.
    You don’t agree? Good for you/too bad. Take your pick.

13. I don’t see Bryant fleeing a raging assailant, I see him driving away from a dead guy. I don’t see the legal powers that be, treating all people equally.
    Unfortunate that Rene Levesque wasn’t in the CCTV when he hit that speed bump.

14. Comment by spokeboy1 on you tube:
    “This Simpsons quote should put it all in perspective.”
    “The Simpsons: Bart Gets Hit by a Car (#2.10)” (1991)
    Lawyer: Your Honor, my client has instructed me to remind the court how rich and important he is, and that he is not like other men.
    Mr. Burns: I should be able to run over as many kids as I want!
    spokeboy1 7 months ago”

15. First, a rant. Why the Hell are surveillance videos all so uniformly crappy? It could have been Manfred the Wonder Dog driving the Saab, and Godzilla riding the bike, and we’d have seen no difference. You can go into any big-box store and buy a digital video cam that will take decent video in practically any lighting condition in which humans can function. And storage is now uber-cheap. There’s no excuse for not shooting full-colour, full-motion video.
    Second, although the video sheds no light on the matter, it appears the dear departed had a grip on the upper rim of the Saab’s steering wheel. A death grip, even. With his full weight acting to turn the steering wheel left, it may have been impossible for Bryant to have countered it, and steer the vehicle to the right, or even straight ahead. So, if Bryant accelerated, the car was pretty much bound to veer left.
    I think Bryant probably should have had his day in court, but it’s probable that he would have been acquitted on the grounds that the death threats from a screaming maniac caused him to panic. In any case, hopefully he’s now sufficiently-damaged goods that his political career is over.

16. The murder victim was likely trying to prevent Bryant from leaving the scene of an accident after Bryant hit his bike.
    There were no fingerprints of the victim on the steering wheel.
    Bryant had control of the brake and accelerator.
    The vehicle swerved into oncoming traffic and drove parallel to the curb on the wrong side of the road effectively running the victim into things like fire-hydrants and light-poles.
    Why wasn’t a jury presented with the evidence?
    Ontarios Star Chamber justice system demonstrates once again that liberal politicians do not go to jail. Those are the rules.

17. This is Canada. A Man dies. The person who did it is an “Entitled Liberal Elitist”.
    The next day the Entitled ex politician walks.
    Then comes the slander of the dead Man killed.
    If Harper farted in public, we would never here the end of it.
    This is Canada.

18. The right verdict.
    Good to see Bryant driving a car manufactured in Ontario. It’s the only thing I can see Bryant doing wrong here.

19. Speaking of idiots, beautiful bright sunny day here in TO and was wearing my shades as I followed a semitrailer tractor at normal speed into a very dark underpass under Dundas street.The truck suddenly brakes, swerves, stops, partially into the passing lane stopping all traffic behind and then slowly moves forward again. We all move into the passing lane and and guess what we passed? A f***ing idiot on a black bike in the curb lane dressed completely in black pedaling his stupid invisible ass next to an underpass sidewalk that might see two pedestrians per hour outside quitting time. If the truck hadn’t been ahead of me and finally seen him at the last second I would have creamed him for sure.
    Makes you wonder.

20. Brtant will fry. That takes care of Dolton’s only viable challenger for the throne of Ontarslobovia.
    Here come de judge! Here come de judge! Here come de judge!

21. Rebut part 1:
    ” If you feel my opinion is haughty,… “
    You’re right kursk, perhaps “haughty” is an understatement. Lets have a closer look…
    I’ll leave the “feelings” to you, your high opinion of yourself is as you say “self evident” when you say things like: “This is where the comments are disturbing.”
    So let me get this straight, because we disagree with you, we’re “disturbed”?
    Then you say: “What some of you people here are engaging in, is justification for homicide.”
    How ignorant can you get? Do you truly believe that some of the commenter’s here justify homicide? Yup, that’s a very cognizant argument. I guess some of us just do not the same appreciation for life as you.
    “…so what. I could say your posts reek of keyboard inspired testosterone,”
    So, testosterone is a bad thing? This is the same testosterone that would enable me to defend myself, and my spouse, when the need arises.
    Just as calling someone names doesn’t in reality mean you’ve automatically lost an argument; simply acknowledging that I concur with the drivers actions, and that I would confront and likely hit a courier that ran me down with his bike on a sidewalk doesn’t mean I wouldn’t do it. Testosterone, yeah, I’ve got plenty of it.
    Actually, I’m quite a big fan of corporal style punishment and have often felt the need to dole it out. I didn’t say that I wasn’t flawed. I have taken my lumps, and looked worse than Stevie Nash (Go Phoenix) on many occasions.

22. Part 2
    “Why should we argue a point that should be self evident?”
    What point, that “a man is dead”? Well thanks Einstein, like Stephan Hawking, you’ve climbed atop the mountain to yell the equivalent of “there’s a whole $hitload of planets out there”, stating the obvious while contributing absolutely nothing to the conversation about life on other planets; or in this case, to the conversation whether its murder, or if someone was simply killed.
    You also say that “we will never know many things about what the true motives of the dead man were.” Exactly! Regardless of the circumstances leading up to the event, once you cross the line, get-in someone’s face and threaten their life, you truly are risking everything. The fact that you deny this “self evident” truth leads me to believe that you are not intimately familiar with these types of situations, and simply do not grasp the seriousness of the threat the cyclist posed to the driver and passenger.
    “In saying that, you would then have me take the words of Bryant as being 100% gospel. I don’t believe a word he says.”
    Nope, I didn’t say that! I’m saying that once you cross the aforementioned “line” you have forfeited whatever high ground you might have had during the previous engagement, and have now engaged in a behaviour where you have no rights; regardless of who says what, and whom you believe.

23. Part 3
    “If that video doesn’t make you think twice (especially the update) than you are just arguing for argument’s sake.For all your rhetoric, a man is still dead.”
    Actually, I’ve thought more than twice about this, and I’m arguing because I disagree with you. Once again, “haughtiness” comes to mind when considering you simply cannot understand that I just disagree with you, not that I’m some lower being who just doesn’t get it. Get it? Not once have I said that you don’t have a valid position, I’ve simply said that you’re not arguing it very well.
    And repeating the “man is dead” thingy doesn’t strengthen your position, it just makes you Einstien^2.

24. Part 4
    “Bryant dodged a bullet, and he should thank whatever deity he prays to. He will never again be as lucky as he was today.”
    On this we agree, except from my view, it’s a shame that Bryant had to dodge a bullet in the first place. As a Canadian, I despise the fact that in the event I must defend my life, I will also have to dodge a legal bullet to live the rest of my life. That said, this was defiantly a situation where it was better to ask forgiveness rather than permission.
    Believe me, I’d much rather the cyclist hadn’t been drinking, the cops hadn’t released him, and that he’d took the plate number instead of embarking on the path that led to his own demise; but I suspect you don’t believe a word I’m saying either.

25. The video is certainly prejudicial to Bryant. But some of the details would have to be filled in by statements and eyewitness testimony. For instance, did Bryant look straight ahead when he drove into Sheppard or did Bryant turn his head to shoulder check? But if he did, he’d still be wrong to move forward from a standing start without looking forward. It seems unlikely that he could miss the fact that he’d hit Sheppard. But what did Sheppard then do? Did he start uttering threats which led Bryant to believe that he had to flee in the car for his own safety? When Bryant fled, did Sheppard grab the wheel thereby steering the car while Bryant attempted to speed away, the two of them thereby creating the collision which was fatal to Sheppard? The video by itself is intriguing, but wholly insufficient to make a solid conclusion of innocence or guilt.
    That being said there’s a ditty used in the nautical world about being too cocky in pressing one’s right of way with another vessel and it seems it applies equally well to the road,
    “He was right, dead right, dead right all along;
    And just as dead as if he was wrong.”

26. Folks, if you are gonna go around picking fights with people, sooner or later you are going to pick a fight with the wrong person and you are going to get hurt.
    Our jails are filled to overflowing with morons and goofs that can’t control their rage, and every one of those bastids aren’t worth the money it takes to pen them.
    If liberals are going to start killing morons, maybe it we should encourage them. Sure, it would have been nice to see the perp hanged or shot, but at least one loser removed himself from the gene pool. Sometimes ya gotta take what ya get and be happy with it.

27. Have to agree with the fact that a drunken road raged cyclist grabbing someone’s steering wheel got what he deserved.
    Unfortunately Bryant should go to jail simply on the grounds that he is a Liberal and has most likely ruined lives and stolen money as a matter of course. But not the killing some drunken cyclist that he wasn’t man enough to stop his car and beat into submission, he chose the typical lefty cowards way out.
    PS: Leave the basketball courts in Saskatchewan alone – remember if you build it they will come.

28. Just keeping score for our beloved MSM:
    Unreported mortgage + unproven unethical associations by Conservative is worse than alleged manslaughter by Liberal.
    Moral: wear liberal red if you’re going to kill someone; steer clear of accountants with blue ties.

29. Without reading every damn comment I suggest a few go back and watch the clip again. There was a collision with the bike. That part is obvious. When the car “leaves the scene” it is with the bicyclist hanging on to the side of the car punching the driver. The driver has the top down and his wife in the car with him. WTF would you do? Personally I would have smeared the dude on the nearest wall. I’m protecting myself and especially my wife. Anybody who suggests he should have jumped out of the car and engaged this hopped up stoned/drunk cyclist (who may have been armed) is just plain stupid. My understanding was that Bryant stopped a short distance down the street when the cyclist was no longer a danger and waited for police. That under the circumstances was NOT leaving the scene and it was NOT an accident. It was self defense – regardless of his politics too!
    Further to that a number of people provided affidavits to the Police that the cyclist engaged in road rage all the time. Photos emerged of him attacking other drivers after contact with cars (you should see how some couriers “negotiate” traffic downtown).
    As it becomes obvious that the police can NOT protect us in all circumstances even the lieberal judges are going to have to accept the fact that people have a God given RIGHT to defend themselves and their families.

30. “I guess none of you know that the POS Micheal Bryant is an experienced boxer with over 20 years of training.”
    So instead of fleeing an assailant as the law would demand, Bryant gets out of his car and with one punch to the head Sheppard drops dead from an embolism.
    Crown Prosecutor Opening statement:
    “People of the jury, you are going to hear how Michael James Bryant, a man with 20 years of training in the martial art of boxing, an experienced fighter, chose, rather than to flee his assailant which was an option open to him, and with no consideration for the welfare of his wife, chose to engage the late Mr. Sheppard in a duel of fisticuffs where he could expect that his opponent was grossly over matched.
    The result being, that a man, Darcy Allan Sheppard, is dead today.”
    Yeah, riiight.
    Maybe Bryant wasn’t, for some unknown medical or other reason, in fighting form that day.
    It has happened to me.
    The fact is, the law requires Bryant to flee if he has the opportunity rather than to engage an assailant.
    Sitting tight in an open convertible with his wife at his side while a maniac shouted death threats, waiting until the police arrived, wasn’t a reasonable option.
    And yes, all the videos I’ve seen are horrible quality.
    But most, not all, videos on YouTube are.
    I’m guessing the quality is due to what the authorities have decided it’s going to be for public consumption.
    The Vancouver Airport cell phone vid about the tazered Polish immigrant was better quality.
    “There were no fingerprints of the victim on the steering wheel.”
    There wouldn’t be any fingerprints of the failed assailant if Bryant had used the steering wheel to, you know, steer his car by placing his hands on the same spots after Sheppard had released it.
    Maybe that’s what happened?
    As a extremely safety conscious motorcyclist (and a way better driver since I took up riding), I must strongly disagree with you here: to move your vehicle ahead while looking back, is BAD BAD BAD. You look back, make an assessment, then look ahead and then drive forward.
    ~Me No Dhimmi
    You just don’t get that no one should have been in front of Bryant and he was looking to merge because from where he was looking no one had indicated otherwise.
    If he had looked in the direction of travel first, the space that Bryant thought was open to merge into could have had a cyclist in it as easily as the space in front of him.
    (or maybe Bryant should have looked for the stupid cyclist that could have come off of the side walk behind his car from the right?)
    *cyclist mindset:
    I’m a vehicle,…I’m a pedestrian,…I’m a vehicle,…I’m a pedestrian,…rinse repeat ad nauseum until the laws of physics kick in…-laws that override the laws of suckup politicians- and then cyclists getted greased because the schtoopid laws that politicians pass to suck up to gullible environmentalists with a suicide wish end a cyclist’s overweening sense of entitlement)
    Bicycles do not belong on the same roads as motor vehicles.
    Why is the cyclist’s accepted unreasonable risk, a greater risk than what another motorist faces, the responsibility of the motorist?
    Cyclists don’t even pay for licenses, registration, insurance or gas taxes that maintain roads.
    My sorrow for Sheppard’s wife and kids rises to the level of consideration that Sheppard gave them when he decided to pursue Bryant with his intent to commit assault and issue his death threats.
    Really.

31. Posted by: DAVE-Y>
    I do find it somewhat amusing, that people think self protection should involve careening a car out of control to avoid or smash an attacker.
    There used to be a day when you would just stop your car and beat the idiot to a point of cease and desist.
    For the weaker crowd, a hand gun aimed at the face would generally stop a road raging cyclist. Had there even been the potential of the car owner carrying a handgun, there is a good chance the cyclist would have been better behaved from the onset.
    People who do not wish to carry a handgun should be forced to put a “No Handgun” sticker on their car and homes to allow criminals to know who the sheep are and who are not.

32. It is possible for someone to be privileged and well-connected and be innocent. The account in the G & M seems fairly convincing to me also based on much previous reading I have done: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/bryant-cleared-of-both-charges-in-cyclists-death/article1580852/
    As far as phoning a PR firm, these days when media are looking for the money shot–a dishevelled person looks a lot more guilty than one who looks haggard and well-groomed, I suppose it’s an even call: to look bad for thinking of one’s image or to let the media have their way. To those who say he drove off, he stopped about 150 m away and phoned 911. Allowing for the adrenaline resulting from being attacked, that’s understandable.
    Perhaps the most convincing thing about the article is a photo taken of the cyclist accosting a driver in a similar way in another incident.
    I expect that part of our indignation is that we know if Joe Public was involved in a similar incident, he/she would not be treated with as much consideration. However, none of that should be a factor in deciding the outcome of this situation. It is sad that the cyclist died, but it is hard to see where Mr. Bryant was criminally responsible.
    As far as taking him to court anyway to “prove” his innocence or guilt, I think prosecutors focus on those cases that they think they can win. Furthermore, it would have been obvious, if this case had been pursued. that it was done from overzealousness or the wish NOT to be seen by the public to be influenced by the status of the defendant.

33. Does OZ work for Navigator?
    Kate; check his IP?
    Why are you letting Bryant’s people post propaganda on your site?

34. rita, you dun lost your mind:)

35. the drunken cyclist had a “history” for stupid /agressive behaviour
    wot Bryand did was reasonable considering yhe circumstances
    and NO, Bryant did not leave the scene of an accident, it wasn’t an accident
    and yes I feel he should have went to tial and found not guilty, as it would be a better precident that way
    BTW; I base my oppinion on personal experience, I’v had a rather colorfull past, with a few appearances

36. “Why are you letting Bryant’s people post propaganda on your site?”
    Brsd, grab a brain and read the comments before you opine you dunderhead.
    Bryant’s(LAL) got no people here.
    “Stevie Nash (Go Phoenix)”- Me @ 8:22

37. “PS: Leave the basketball courts in Saskatchewan alone – remember if you build it they will come”
    roglmao
    Touche Knight, Touche.

38. Why is it that a cyclist can switch from being a vehicle to a pedestrian back to a vehicle like some kind of legal magic?
    A cyclist can be walking or riding along a sidewalk and SHAZZAM! they take to the road, doesn’t even have to be at a corner, and they suddenly become a vehicle?
    Cyclists aren’t a pedestrian who walks to a parked vehicle that motorists can see is parked at the curb, climb in and then, after signaling with lights, merge with the traffic.
    Sure motorists already driving down the road might see a cyclist/pedestrian turned vehicle that just came off the middle of a sidewalk, but what about a motorist who is parked and trying to merge like Bryant was?
    What kind of cyclist parks their bike on the road?
    How many cyclists park on the street at the curb like they are MOTORcyclists or fulltime vehicles the way Sheppard was clearly doing?
    That’s strange to me, probably to Bryant too.
    Indicates a militant attitude, which is why Sheppard assaulted Bryant.
    Pugilistic and vengeful for not seeing the new cyclist’s paradigm, new creeping entitlement.
    Cutting edge of stupid.
    Cyclists can just come off of a side walk anywhere and BAM! they instantly become a vehicle when seconds before they were a pedestrian.
    And all cyclists have the same physical weaknesses a pedestrian has in an altercation with a motorvehicle.
    (the laws of politicians may give cyclists licence, but the laws of physics will revoke that licence in an unmerciful manner)
    A pedestrian without a bike who comes off of the curb and onto the road is a JAYWALKER.
    Yet cyclists move faster than pedestrians can run but when they collide with a car they sustain the same injuries that a pedestrian does.
    It would make more sense to bring back horses and ban bicycles.
    Indiana,
    the problem with making more baseketball courts is that you have to find some treeless land flat enough to build them on.
    8^D

39. Aren’t we all forgetting that Bryant made a political career out of banning the citizen’s ability to defend himself and he now hides behind the very protection he is unwilling to afford you?
    No Car No Funeral?

40. “….The fact is, the law requires Bryant to flee if he has the opportunity rather than to engage an assailant”………..
    Posted by: Oz at May 25, 2010 9:40 PM
    —————————-
    Well that’s a law that needs to be changed!
    I much prefer the Supreme Court of India’s ruling on self defense:
    “The law does not require a law-abiding citizen to behave like a coward when confronted with an imminent, unlawful aggression.

41. Well that’s a law that needs to be changed!
    ~Mr.G
    Totally agree.

42. Wish I had more on this, however a few years ago near Weyburn, a bachelor farmer was sitting alone at home when a gang of hooligans came in his yard to steal gas. He took out a shotgun, fired above them never hitting anyone. he was charged, and if I recall, his firearms were seized.
    In Ontario however, you can kill someone who is simply hanging on to a car. And to think that we don’t even hang murderers anymore. I’d like to see a video of the alleged altercation.

43. PS: Thanks for posting this Kate.

44. IndianaH..
    The comprehension level here leaves a lot to be desired. How you can take my saying that I find some comments disturbing as meaning the commentators are ‘disturbed’ is in and of itself disturbing!
    Point 2) When posters say ‘he was asking for it’ and ‘he deserved it’ what they are really doing is justifying Bryant’s actions by rationalizing that the correct response to the incident would be to kill the man. There is only one way to view those comments I’m afraid.Ponder it for awhile.
    Point 3) Ahh.. we’re only on point three and your already reaching back into the big ‘ole bag of ad hominems! If the comprehension level was upped a wee bit, you would notice that I said I don’t see why we are arguing over a self evident truth. However, you missed the boat on what that truth is…and that would be(regardless of the circumstances)that a man died and yet no charges were laid, in spite of evidence to the contrary (including leaving the scene, a no brainer)
    There will not even be a trial. How nice for Bryant.
    If you have ever read any of my posts on conservative blogs, you will know that I have walked the walk, and along with a few others here had 25+ years in the military, with nearly a dozen years on overseas ops. I have been in situations where my decision could mean life or death for someone. . You obviously would have done things differently in this particular situation, but I know for a fact that all the bluster goes out the window for most when the excrement hits the oscillation device.
    Your mileage may vary on this, I don’t know. You choose to believe a version of the truth that suits you. I do not, not in this particular case.
    I guess we’ll just have to disagree on this particular issue.
    Onwards and upwards.

45. Does anyone know if Sheppard’s family is going to file a civil suit?
    The steering wheel did not have Sheppard’s fingerprints on it – a fact. For someone who purportedly grabbed and hung on to Bryant’s steering wheel, apparently for some distance; it’s certainly odd that there is no evidence to support this accusation; other than his wife’s testimony. Maybe Bryant would not let go of Sheppard’s arm and that’s why his arm was in the car window, if indeed it was.
    Did Byrant not think to role up his car window to loosen any grip on the steering wheel, or his wife? I am sure they had power windows that could be controlled either by the driver or passenger. Why leave; especially when there is no longer any danger from the “assailant”. I think it doubly odd the Bryant was not tested for alcohol or drug use.
    I find it hard to believe that a trained boxer with 20yrs experience would not just bash the guy in the face – intense military and sports training result in muscle memory – which is very useful if your mind goes blank – the muscle’s don’t and automatically do what they have been trained to do and repeatedly done thousands of times. Those in war and in intense competition often experience Amygdala attacks, repetitious training ensures the body will take over in the event of an Amygdala high jacking.
    If it is true that Bryant is responsible for today’s self defense laws, then he is also a hypocrite.

46. People here would do well to check the front page of today’s National Post (print edition); it has detailed photos of Sheppard attacking another driver three weeks before the Bryant incident. The series of photograohs show Sheppard trying to climb in the window of a car to grab the driver. Six people have come forward to give evidence that they too were attacked in a similar manner by Sheppard.
    I have little use for Bryant but it appears to me he acted in self defense – even if he did panic.

47. Well now. It seems that things in Ontario have progressed to the point where an important Liberal can kill somebody for pissing him off, and get a WALK from the justice system.
    Rules of Engagement for civilians in Ontario DO NOT PERMIT use of deadly force against an unarmed assailant. Using a car on a cyclist is potentially deadly force, in this case -actual- deadly force. That video clearly shows the car running into the cyclist when he was -in front- of the vehicle. That right there is enough to get you an attempted murder charge all by itself.
    If -I-, Mr. Nobody, had crossed Bloor Street to scrape an unarmed drunk off my car against a mailbox, is there a single person out there who doubts that my Phantom @ss would be in jail right now, today, awaiting trial? Is there anyone who doubts I would be charged with murder?
    Is there anyone who doubts I’d still be charged with murder if the drunk had a gun?
    I doubt it.
    These are the things to remember for the next election, my friends.

48. OZ – you clearly have some kind of hate on for cyclists. It’s people like you that scare cyclists onto the sidewalk, when the road is obviously the preferred option.
    Cyclists should obey the rules of the road, as they have all of the rights and responsibilities as any other vehicle. They do belong on the road, and here in Edmonton there are an estimate 25,000 every day doing so – safely. If we all play by the same rules, then we all know what to expect from each other, and can operate our vehicle accordingly.
    I’m a full-time bike commuter, year-round, and in the last 3 years I’ve only had 3 minor incidents involving cars, and none did any damage at all. The vast majority of drivers I come across are both reasonable and courteous, and I have a few really nice experiences with drivers every single day. The drivers that are a problem for me and other cyclists are probably the same drivers other drivers have problems with.
    As for your utterly stupid “no harm, no foul” comment, if someone fires a gun at you and grazes you, is that ok then? A car is also a weapon when used as one. Just ask the people who were hit in Edmonton recently when an angry idiot decided to plow his car into them.
    If you can’t see the “harm or foul” in what happened, then no amount of explaining is going to get it through your thick skull.
    Sheppard may have been an asshole, but Bryant didn’t know who he was hitting when he hit him with his car in the initial incident. That’s the first thing Bryant should have been charged with. I shouldn’t have to mention that you can’t hit people with your car.
    What happened afterward is conjecture, and open for debate, but it’s pretty clear what precipitated this incident, despite all of the propaganda by Byant’s PR team..

49. “There were no fingerprints of the victim on the steering wheel.”
    There wouldn’t be any fingerprints of the failed assailant if Bryant had used the steering wheel to, you know, steer his car by placing his hands on the same spots after Sheppard had released it.
    Maybe that’s what happened?
    Think.
    Is there any evidence that Bryant steered his car for any period of time after Sheppard let go whatever part of the car he may have been clinging to after he let go?
    If Sheppard wasn’t clinging to the steering wheel, what part of the car could Sheppard possibly have been clinging to when so many witnesses saw Sheppard clinging to the car?
    Open to suggestions on what part of the car Sheppard could have clinging too, but it’s a fact that fingerprints can be smeared off by simply placing another hand on top of the previously printed area.
    Basic logic:
    Sheppard’s prints on the steering wheel would prove Sheppard had grabbed the steering wheel.
    corollary-No Prints on the steering wheel does not prove Sheppard didn’t grab the steering wheel.
    It only proves that Sheppard’s prints can not be confirmed to be on the steering wheel.

50. Aren’t we all forgetting that Bryant made a political career out of banning the citizen’s ability to defend himself and he now hides behind the very protection he is unwilling to afford you?
    Thank you! Amazing that it took 90 comments for somebody to mention that. Can we also note that this poseur instigated dubious programs of vehicle seizure and banning a loosely defined breed of dog?
    FWIW I have no sympathy for the hoodlum “cyclist”. The rest of us are better off with him at room temperature. Just like the citizens of Ontario are better off with Bryant out of politics.