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

  1. 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.
    So it’s your position that Bryant meant to kill Sheppard when Sheppard was standing in front of Bryant’s parked car but didn’t do any damage to Sheppard or his bike that interfered with Sheppard going after him and confronting him at the traffic light, is it Jimbo?
    That the bump that we saw at the outset of the video was Bryant using his car as a weapon?
    Maybe you have a comment about the post at John B at May 26, 2010 8:38 AM?
    Cyclists should obey the rules of the road, as they have all of the rights and responsibilities as any other vehicle.
    Which of these responsibilities that motorists have do cyclists not have:
    -licence which can be revoked for repeated driving offences
    -registration and tag so that others on the road(or sidewalk) can identify violations to the authorities
    -training requirement test to prove they can operate vehicle safely and know rules of the road
    -gasoline taxes that maintain upkeep of the roads
    -insurance premiums to compensate for their responsibilities in an accident

  2. jimbo…until bike riders carry the same insurance as me as a driver…THEN they will have a right to be on the road.Otherwise…run the suckers overs if they are in your lane,doing 30 klicks in a 80 kick zone.It’s called Darwins Laws.And get used to it.200lbs of shiite on a bike has no chance against 3000 lbs of car.You failed physics in school,right?

  4. Holy crap, Oz. If I had hit a cyclist parked directly in front of my vehicle, knocked him and his bike over and pushed them along the pavement a few feet, the last thing I’d do is race away from the scene of the accident – unless the decision to ram him for pulling in front of my car had been intentional in the first place.
    The cyclist was a jerk, but Bryant deserves to fry.

  6. I went to Youtube yesterday and watched about 6 mostly similar videos about Sheppard/Bryant.
    The video you have on your home page is edited in an extremely biased way.
    It starts will a shot of the parked scene from above, and cuts to a horizontal view that is not in the same place on the same section of street.
    The car was parked right next to a sidewalk in the first section, you can see that on other videos, and then the one you have cuts from the overhead to the horizontal scene where there is clearly a traffic lane instead of a sidewalk.
    that’s before the third cut where it shows a car going the opposite direction.
    None of the videos are very clear, but the video you have chosen isn’t one of the better ones.
    Maybe, Kate, you should go to YouTube and see as many of those videos as you can.

  7. Kursk
    In my view, it was self-defence from a raging lunatic. The crown figures there is no hope of conviction; therefore, no charges. I concur, still knowing that someone is dead. The only item in question here IMO is if “Joe Public” or a Conservative would have also had the charges dropped. What isn’t in question is if the MSM would have handled that situation differently, but the Crown, I can’t say.
    Bygones.

  8. Based on the executive summary (PDF) of the special prosecutor’s
    findings, I think that dropping the charges against Mr. Bryant was
    the correct decision. Many of the arguments made above are based
    on incorrect information.

  10. People should read some of the detailed press reports about this before commenting. Six other drivers came forward after this incident to report that this guy had been doing similiar things to them. Sorry to say but he was the author of his own misfortune.

  11. Everyone should read the exec summary at the link in Vitruvius post at May 26, 2010 10:57 AM post. If you still think Bryant is responsible, you need your head read.

  12. Next time some poor sucker down on Jane and Finch is caught is a similar altercation, I shall look forward to the special prosecutor’s findings.
    My point stands: Bryant should have faced trial like any other person. Let his defense attorney defend him – like any other person.

  13. Kate, if there is no chance of conviction, or it’s very unlikely then charges should not be laid; otherwise it’s harassment. If your point is that Bryant got preferential treatment, then I think that’s a reasonable suspicion. Nobody in that exact situation should face such charges. What Oz and others are trying to say (I think) is that regardless of political leanings, in this case, the prosecutor made the right decision.
    What is beyond doubt, is the “pass” the MSM is giving to this story based solely on politics. But that’s a separate issue.

  14. Kate;
    You’re making it sound as if a prosecutor has never made a decision with regard to an average Joe that no charges should be persued. That is simply false. Those kinds of decisions are made every day. They just don’t end up front page in the newspapers.

  16. From my comments above, I’m obviously with Kate too.
    I’m wondering why Bryant wasn’t charged with a provable offence — like leaving the scene of an accident (and, sorry, folks it WAS an accident in the broad sense of the word: someone hit someone and someone ended up dead).
    I’d also like to know why a breathalizer wasn’t administered by the police, especially as Bryant and his wife had been out celebrating (BTW, a lousy way to end your anniversary). If he’d been over the legal limit, he could have been charged.
    It appears that he wasn’t charged with any offenses that COULD have been proven — and I wonder why that was, except that I think I know why: Bryant’s a former Liberal Attorney General of the province and he and his wife are high rollers in the legal community. Sorry to be so skeptical.
    But, I am. If I’d done the same thing, I don’t think I’d have gotten off Scott-free.

  17. OZ – Bryant hit him with a 2000 lb vehicle. Whether he meant to do it or not, he did it. He wasn’t looking where he was driving. What part of that video can you not understand? The part where Bryant hits the guy and drives him a car length? Are you blind?
    Let a judge decide. For all kinds of good reasons, including optics.
    And re: justthinkin post
    “jimbo…until bike riders carry the same insurance as me as a driver…THEN they will have a right to be on the road.Otherwise…run the suckers overs if they are in your lane,doing 30 klicks in a 80 kick zone. It’s called Darwins Laws. And get used to it. 200lbs of shiite on a bike has no chance against 3000 lbs of car. You failed physics in school,right?”
    Are you threatening my life, buddy? How did you manage to pass your drivers test, much less physics?
    Cyclists have a right to be on the road, according to the law. So do motorcyclists, and they weigh a lot less than 3000 lbs too. How about pedestrians crossing the street? Do they have to get out of your way too, or you’ll run them over, claiming the physics made you do it, so it’s ok?
    Does the fact there are big trucks on the road mean small cars shouldn’t be there, because of the laws of physics?
    Read the friggin’ laws, bozo. It’s a speed LIMIT, as in the MAXIMUM SPEED, not a required speed. Gutless puke. Let’s see how tough you are outside of your car. I can just tell you’re a little guy, if you catch my drift.
    Threatening my life, and the lives of millions of others because you think your opinion over-rides the law is unacceptible.
    By the way, most of the people who ride bikes also drive a car.
    It’s idiots like you that demonstrate the real problem regarding cycling, and cyclists, and motorcyclists, etc. You are the problem. It’s you that doesn’t belong on the roads, until you learn to drive according to the rules of the road.

  18. And justthinkin:
    “Otherwise…run the suckers overs if they are in your lane,doing 30 klicks in a 80 kick zone. It’s called Darwins Laws.”
    No buddy – it’s called first degree murder.

  19. batb;
    You should take the time to go to the link that Vitruvius provided in his 10:57am post. It’s the prosecutor’s summary and answers all the questions you have.
    As far as a leaving the scene charge is concerned, there was no basis for it. It was the Bryant’s who called the police and remained until they arrived.
    Anyway, read the summary. The dead guy was a total psycho as attested to by numerous witnesses both at the scene and others who called in to report encounters with him in the days leading up to his confrontation with Bryant.

  20. ‘Nice how the CBC was so accommodating in posting the prosecutor’s summary.
    I’m not particularly convinced. Sorry about that. From the first two pages you’d think that Mr. Sheppard was the accused.
    There’s no mention at all of an attempt by the police to administer a breathalizer test. I find that curious. Much has been made of Mr. Sheppard’s inebriation, but nothing at all has been said about the possibility of Mr. Bryant’s having been drinking, which is a distinct possibility, given the circumstances of the evening out.
    It’s well-known that Mr. Bryant is feisty and aggressive, and yet he comes across as completely docile in this situation.
    It would seem to me that somewhere between the aggression of Mr. Sheppard and the supposed “docility” of Mr. Bryant, the truth lies.

  21. I have a question for the lawyers.
    Had Sheppard survived the incident and been charged with some kind of “road rage”-related offense, isn’t it possible that all the evidence regarding his previous behaviour might not have been admissible at his trial? “Similar fact” evidence is often considered prejudicial to an accused, and is therefore excluded. So why would it be allowed in the actual circumstances here?
    I’m not saying anything untoward occurred, I’m just wondering.

  22. batb;
    “It’s well-known that Mr. Bryant is feisty and aggressive”
    Really. I must have missed reports of that. What is your source.

  23. nv53;
    In answer to your question about similiar fact evidence, here is the relevant quotes from the prosecutor’s summary.
    “Because there is an allegation in this case that Mr. Sheppard acted as the
    aggressor in the confrontation with Mr. Bryant, the law requires us to consider the
    prior conduct of the deceased .” “The deceased’s propensity for aggressiveness or
    violence, however, is relevant to considering whether the accused was attacked
    by the deceased and to show the probability that the deceased was the
    aggressor in the altercation.”
    Hope that clarifies it for you.

  24. bob c, sorry no time this morning to follow up your question, but it’s well-known that Bryant flamboyantly and, often, rather unpleasantly threw his weight around while Attorney General.
    I’m sure if you Google him, once you get past the altercation of which charges have been dropped, you’ll find plenty of evidence of the aggressive behaviour that’s been his hallmark as a politician. (I think it was even mentioned in some of the articles at the time of the incident last September.)

  25. bob c, re:
    “Because there is an allegation in this case that Mr. Sheppard acted as the aggressor in the confrontation with Mr. Bryant, the law requires us to consider the prior conduct of the deceased .” “The deceased’s propensity for aggressiveness or violence, however, is relevant to considering whether the accused was attacked by the deceased and to show the probability that the deceased was the aggressor in the altercation.”
    Thanks for posting that. It would make a lot more sense to me, if not for the video evidence of Bryant hitting Sheppard with his car. That’s what I have the biggest problem with.
    And I’m not sure Bryant’s action wouldn’t have been determined unreasonable force.
    I think it should have gone before a judge. There should have been a breathalizer administered to Bryant.
    And Bryant bragged regularly about his boxing prowess, that Muhammad Ali was his hero, and anyone who crossed him should look out. Strangely enough, the stories I read to that effect disappeared from the internet soon after this happened. PR team?
    Too many loose ends. The optics are very bad. It smells of privilege and class preference.

  26. Remember Wikileaks and the “Collateral Murder” scam?
    I’ll never put my trust in small video clips of any event. They may leave too much out, especially if it doesn’t fit the narrative.

  27. “Bryant left the scene of an accident.”
    It wasn’t an accident YOU DUMBASS.
    He was being threatened and assaulted by a drunk fit young man who’d been in trouble with the law several times for violence and threats including earlier that day WHILE THE MIDDLE AGED MAN HAD HIS WIFE IN HIS CONVERTIBLE.
    Of course he left the damn scene. Then called the police when at a safe distance.

  28. EXCUSE ME, get real: Get real why dontcha?
    Bryant HIT Sheppard with his car. Everything that happened after that seems to have been precipitated by that initial bump — which, by any normal standards, is called “an accident.”
    It’s pretty clear to me who the DUMBASS is, uh, Dumbass.

  29. Re: no Sheppard fingerprints on the steering wheel. Um, maybe he was wearing gloves, as cyclists often do?

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation