131 Replies to “Ontario Pit Bull Ban Deemed A Success”

  1. In City TV’s 11 pm report they also mentioned that police were called to Shepperd’s girlfriend’s place and were asked to remove him. They had video of a friend saying Shepperd was drunk and at one point in the back of the cop car (although other reports have the cops saying he wasn’t drunk).
    They also reported that the whole thing kicked off at Sherbourne – this case of road rage is getting longer and longer by the minute!
    Lastly, they had a couple of low-res vids. One seemed to show the cyclist passing Bryant’s stationary car on the driver’s side and hitting it; the car can be seen shuddering. In the other clip the cyclist appears to be on the ground in front of Bryant’s car, with Bryant maneuvering around him.

  2. In case anyone is interested,Michael Bryant has been a trained boxer for many,many years and can probably handle himself in a fight.

  3. Here is a crazy idea…let’s wait for the FACTS before we judge either party.
    I think some of you forgot that in our system (that many of you are so proud of) consists of an “innocent till proven quilty”
    trying practising the values of our society even when it is not convienent for you

  4. Yesterday night, former Ontario Attorney-General Michael Bryant barely survived an “assassination attempt”.
    Do not be fooled by what Canadian Press it feeding you with in relation to this tragedy
    In the frightened eyes of Mr. Michael Bryant courier Darcy Allan Sheppard was an assassin who must have been stalking Mr. Michael Bryant for a long time. In the frightened eyes of Mr. Michael Bryant, he was the one that intentionally drove his bike into a path of Mr. Michael Bryant’s Saab. In Mr. Bryant’s frightened eyes he was the one who intentionally caused initial accident so he could stop Mr. Michael Bryant’s car and viciously attack and possibly kill Mr. Bryant. This murderous intent was written all over Darcy Allan Sheppard face when he slammed his dirty and filthy knapsack on the hood of Mr. Michael Bryant’s shiny Saab. If that was not a clear signal of a pending assault Darcy Allan Sheppard grabbed, with his filthy fingers, side mirror of Mr. Michael Bryant’s spunky clean Saab. His dirty fingers smeared driver side mirror of Mr. Michael Bryant’s shiny car and his hand was obscuring view in that mirror and was already endangering Mr. Michael Bryant’s life by blinding his rear view. Darcy Allan Sheppard did not let Mr. Michael Bryant drive away in peace despite of the fact that Michael Bryant former Attorney General of Ontario already suffered an insult to his personal dignity and dignity of the public office, that Mr. Bryant represented so diligently not so long ago, when Darcy Allan Sheppard publicly slammed his dirty and filthy knapsack on a hood of Mr. Michael Bryant’s car.
    Mr. Michael Bryant could have had Darcy Allan Sheppard arrested on the spot and thrown in jail with one simple phone call and Darcy Allan Sheppard knew it or should have known it. This extreme act of humility that Mr. Michael Bryant have shown by ignoring Darcy Allan Sheppard’s repeated provocations and attempting to leave scene of confrontation without calling the cops would have given everybody else a pause but it did not stop Darcy Allan Sheppard’s aggression against Mr. Michael Bryant.
    What was Mr. Michael Bryant suppose to do when his personal safety and his life was endangered by what looked to him as a raging street person most probably drunk or high on drugs.
    He did what any other scared midget would have done, he panicked and he tried to disengage himself from the immediate threat to his personal security.
    The rest of it; crossing to the other side of the road and frantic attempting to detach would be assailant, and who know if not a paid assassin, was a “reasonable thing to do” considering Darcy Allan Sheppard insistence on holding on to Mr. Bryant’s car and Mr. Bryant’s frightened personality.
    After all, it is not Mr. Bryant’s fault that he is a midget who lived his entire life scared of the other, bigger men. It is not his fault that his fear of other, bigger men governed his entire life and drove him to become Attorney General of Ontario so he could hide his fears of other men behind cordons of police, authority of judges and iron bars of Ontario prisons.
    In rough and tumble of Canadian politics; fears, obsessions, and sexual perversions are never properly diagnosed and treated by psychiatrists, they are rewarded with high public offices, and this is as true for scarecrow Michael Bryant becoming Attorney General of Ontario as it is for lesbian with homosexual son Kathleen Wynne becoming Ontario Minister of Education, former whore Carole Curtis becoming a family judge, pedophile William Holt Wehrspann becoming child psychiatrist and family court expert in children’s “false allegations” of sexual abuse, vengeful homosexual Harvey Brownstone becoming a judge sitting in North York Family Court, raging homosexual James Cantor becoming scientist of sorts, CAMH researcher and an expert in pedophilia, just to name the few perverts on government jobs.
    In the end Mr. Michel Bryant will never serve a day in jail for killing an innocent man but that is the order of things in Ontario.
    BTW, his will not be the biggest outrage as his predecessor and now dead promoter Ian Scott also killed at least one person his homosexual partner Kim Yakabuski, brother of sitting MPP John Yakabuski, by repeatedly sodomizing him until Kim died of AIDS in 1993.
    Even that outrage does not break the record, here is something we should be upset about:
    When homosexuals murder heterosexuals in Canada they never spend any time in prison. Even the fact of homosexuality of the murderer is never mentioned in Canadian press. The fact that homosexual mentioned below lured his victim to his own apartment in the middle of the night with the promise of free drugs and intent to sodomize his victim is barely even mentioned. The fact that the victim tried to escape, and the fact that homosexual killer choked him to death, in the stairwell of apartment building, in order to avoid getting reported to police, identified and charged with sexual assault, got converted by homosexual reporter working for the Toronto Star into heroic attempt to make citizens arrest of crazed drug addicted robber that ended in accidental death, and I swear that I am not making it all up.
    See:
    http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/299599

  5. vehicular homocide, likely not premeditated. So it’s simply a matter of mans laughter.
    Manslaughter, if you will.

  7. Kevin Lafayette @ 3:53pm:
    You are absolutely right. If a guy comes at me looking like he wants to do me harm, and seems capable of it, my foot is on the gas pedal, particularly so if I happen to have a female passenger. May God help anyone who decides to hang on for the ride.
    KevinB;
    In response to Kevin L you said, **Er, stopping your car, waiting for said possibly deranged individual to disengage from your auto, and then driving away is not an option that would occur to you?**
    Why would a guy who holds onto a moving car decide to give it up when the car comes to a stop. What is he going to do, stand up, smile and say, **Thanks for the fun ride Mister**, then turn and walk away.

  8. Well, I just find it so heart-warming, that in a big, impersonal hive of a city like Toronto, two such deserving people were able to find each other and fulfill their destiny.
    Kind of restores my faith in human nature, it does.

  9. bob c:
    Have you ever tried to hang on to a car from a standing start? It’s pretty difficult. Stopping the car abruptly would doubtless have thrown the cyclist off; driving off afterward would have made it almost impossible for him to hang on. I have no brief for the cyclist; it’s quite possible he was a meth head, aggressive, etc. But Bryant’s actions are not excusable by any reasonable means.

  10. Hey Boys how much is Navigator paying you to troll the blogs and write smak about the dead guy?
    Still doesn’t hold water. Because here is the problem: Bryant should have stopped. He shouldn’t have driven the car for a city block with a human being attached to it – all with the intent to dislodge the human being from his car by aiming the human being at stationary objects.
    Here is what Bryant should have done if he was scared: STOP and RUN
    And who was riding shotgun with Bryant. A blonde or his wife? Because the two are not the same. And if everything was A-OK why did this mystery woman leave the scene only to “turn herself in” in the early hours…

  11. Attiticus – You can’t be serious! An intoxicated, younger, bigger man attacks you in your car, and you’d get out of the vehicle to “run”? Give me a break.
    And, yes, multiple media sources have confirmed that Bryant’s wife (Susan Abramovitch) was the woman in the passenger seat.
    I am not suggesting that Bryant acted appropriately (or not), just that the idea that getting out of the car to “run away” would hardly be the normal or rational response to the alleged situation.

  12. KevinB;
    Your theory that it is very difficult to hold onto the side of a moving car is contradicted by the simple fact that that is exactly what the guy in question did in this case. Sorry, but reality intrudes on your argument.
    As to whether Bryants actions are in any way understandable or excusable, you and I do not know and will not until the facts become public. I can envision however a scenario where they would be very understandable.
    How about this. You are in your car when someone approaches you with the intent to assault you, which is what witnesses in this case are saying happened here. When you hit the gas to get away, a not unreasonable thing to do, the guy grabs not just a hold of the car, but also a hold of you. Perhaps he has an arm around your neck, or perhaps your left arm, or perhaps even by the steering wheel itself.
    Imagine youself being dragged along on the drivers side of a car. You would lose your footing pretty quickly. You would be in a semi prone position with your head and shoulders around the level of the top of the door with your feet dragging behind.
    From that position, the only part of the wheel you could grab would be the top half which would have the effect of making the car turn left. Have you considered the possibility that the westbound car did not turn into the eastbound lanes because Bryant willfully wanted to bounce the guy off a mailbox, but because it was pulled that way by the guy hanging on, or because the wrestling match he initiated with Bryant caused him to lose control.
    It seems to me the question is, was it reasonable on Bryants part to believe this guy to be a dangerous nutcase thereby justifying his attempt to drive away and not stop. The elephant in the living room that you ignore, is that the guy proved that when he grabbed hold of the car. Rational people simply do not do that.
    This guy was the author of his own misfortune, in general just by grabbing hold of a moving car, and possibly quite specifically by causing the car to veer and run him into the very mailbox that killed him. They are going to have a hard time convicting Bryant because most people will understand that the guy was a nutcase well worth trying to put some distance between.

  13. It now surfaces that the “victim” was a fugitive—-had skipped bail in Edmonton—-he was facing 53 charges with regard to forging and uttering stolen cheques.
    His half-brother, doing 4 years on drug offences in Winnipeg, has a sob story and vouches for his departed brother’s good character.

  14. sasquatch;
    Did you read what some of his bike courier friends had to say. He was a guy whose life was really screwed up, but that just in the last week he had gotten it together and was headed for great things. Sadly, he did not know that you do not get there hanging onto the side of a moving car. If only one of them had told him, what might have been….

  15. It’s those expensive rag top sedans. In the hands of a megalomaniac they’re built for only one purpose; to injure and kill.
    One more thing for Miller and McChimpy to ban.

  16. I love all of the anonymous postings from Navigator bloggers coming to the defense of Ontario’s former Attorney General
    who passed legislation allowing the province of Ontario to crush the cars of street racers….
    and according to witnesses Bryant was speeding in excess of 90km
    per hour in the wrong direction on Bloor Street running his unwelcome passenger into trees, lamp-posts, a fire-hydrant and finally a mailbox before DRIVING OVER THE CYCLISTS HEAD.
    Will Bryant’s Saab convertible be crushed for street racing?
    Will Bryant be charged with murder under section 229(a)(ii) of the Criminal Code?
    Can we expect to see an endless parade of prominent liberal politicians providing character references for Bryant?
    Will Mayor Miller use this tragedy to justify billions of dollars in further unnecessary road work in Toronto to create bike lanes for meth heads?
    Will anyone in the media ever wonder why Bryant did not use his cell phone to call 911 when the incident started?
    Was Bryant initially trying to flee the scene of an accident?
    Are the victims fingerprints on the steering wheel of Bryant’s car?
    Did Bryant consume alcohol at his anniversary dinner?
    Did Bryant threaten the bicyclist before murdering him?
    The media whores are all trying to find some way of justifying Bryant’s insane actions.
    I sincerely hope that the family of the murder victim retains counsel and destroys Bryant financially because we already know
    that he will get away with murder.

  17. Yes, because witnesses can accurately assess the speed of a moving vehicle, at night, in a traumatic situation.
    Ey yi yi.

  19. Bob C; early media accounts and witness statements make two important points;
    Bryant was accelerated his vehicle while the victim was holding onto his car
    and he then swerved into oncoming traffic and ran the victim into
    light-posts, trees, a fire-hydrant and a mailbox….
    Bryant’s actions were deliberate. Bryant intended to harm the cyclist. According to Canadian law – that’s murder.
    Now go get back to work at your PR firm Bob C… your client is guilty.

  20. Brad – Nothing in your comment proves or demonstrates intent. The fact that the car accelerated and swerved into oncoming traffic only proves that the car accelerated and swerved into oncoming traffic.

  21. **Bryant was accelerated his vehicle**
    Brad; take a remedial English course, and perhaps another in critical thinking, then shake your head.

  22. Brad; take a remedial English course, and perhaps another in critical thinking, then shake your head
    Change the “ed” to “ing” and you get the idea…
    I think everyone understands that your client – based on eyewitness accounts in initial media reports – was driving at a high rate of speed with the murder victim attached to his Saab convertible.
    That’s not “critical thinking” … it’s a fact.
    We also know that the brakes were working in Mr. Bryant’s Saab convertible.
    Section 229 (a)(ii) is very clear on this issue. Critical thinking in this regard is not required. We’ll let the public decide if Bryant gets away with murder.
    Also worth noting that under Bryant’s street racing legislation that Saab convertible should be crushed.
    Now go post some anonymous comments on other websites and tell the world what a courageous and moral person your client is
    because if I were to think critically about the known facts in the Bryant murder case I would consider him to be an absolute freakin’ lowlife.
    Who even considers driving into oncoming traffic to ram his own vehicle into a freakin’ light-post and mailbox with someone hanging onto the side of their car?
    Who does Bryant think he is? James Bond?
    Bryant studied boxing. He should have had his “lady friend” dial 911 while he settled his dispute like a man.
    No, better yet, when he initially hit Mr. Shepard’s bicycle he could have asked if Mr. Shepard was alright and offered to repair his bike. That’s not critical thinking. It’s being reasonable and kind. It’s acting like a human being instead of a psychopath.
    The good news is that even if Bryant does not go to jail – and he won’t – his life as a public figure is finished. Bryant will forever be known as an unstable and uncaring individual who kills people to settle traffic disputes.
    The legal and PR fees will easily be 7 figures and his drivers license is revoked for eternity.
    Now piss off Bob C. and Jim and all of your good natured liberal friends who have been retained to salvage what you can of Bryant’s tarnished reputation.
    Malum en si

  23. Brad;
    Sorry, but a true man does not get out of his car and settle **his dispute like a man.** That is for testosterone fueled boys and idiots. We have a dead one of those in this case who would still be alive if he had understood that.
    Sadly for him, his mind seems to work in much the same way as yours. Just some friendly advice, but if something similiar ever happens to you, resist the urge to show the world what a tough guy you are, jot down the plate number and call the police. Think man think. Switch your brain to ON before engaging your mouth.

  24. Tee hee.
    Yes, Brad, someone who points out the holes in your argument MUST be a liberal (or a Liberal). EVERYONE has a hidden agenda except for you. NO ONE could possibly have a different perspective on the event without being a Bryant fart-catcher.
    FWIW, I haven’t defended Bryant, simply addressed your juvenile tendency to confuse opinions and speculation with facts. I always find it amazing, but sadly not surprising, how feeble internet commentators presume to know exactly what happened (in an event to which they didn’t witness) and (more ludicrously) the motivation/thinking of those involved (despite not knowing those involved or being involved themselves).
    Declarations like “he is guilty of murder” despite very murky details and circumstances crack me up. We saw something very similar with the Pat Kane taxi incident last month.
    Perhaps part of the problem is that you are confusing the term homicide (the killing of another human being) with murder (the unlawful killing of a human being with intent and/or malice).
    Bryant may very well be guilty of a crime – the Toronto Police Service seems to think so – and the large number of witnesses and video evidence should ensure that the facts come out. It is certainly possible (if only remotely) that he is guilty of murder, although the generally accepted facts of the case would seem to suggest otherwise. Even if we accept the worst case sort of scenario (Bryant flipped out and was trying to injure the victim), manslaughter charges would be the most obvious fit. There was clearly no pre-meditation (the men had never met) and the death wasn’t the result of criminal behaviour that could conceivably lead to homicide (i.e. shooting someone during a bank hold-up). In such a light, the death is comparable to someone dying from a bar fight, an event that rarely (if ever) results in murder charges.
    Regardless, your blanket declarations of guilt are just silly.
    Anyway, thanks for the entertainment!

  26. Brad, get mental help.
    The deceased was not a murder victim.
    Your pathology is clear: you don’t like Bryant, therefore he’s guilty.
    How exactly was this drunken methadone addict attached to the car? He wasn’t doing anything stupid like holding onto the steering wheel was he? Gee, no wonder Bryant swerved into the opposite lane.
    How many seconds was Sheppard holding onto the car before striking the mailbox?
    Street racing? How fast was the car going? You’re the expert, apparently. How many miles per hour?
    How do you know Bryant hit Sheppard’s bike?
    Take a look at Free Dominion’s take on this. Equally divisive, but I see a lot of conservatives defending Bryant.
    http://www.freedominion.com.pa/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=122641&start=120&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=
    Oops, I guess they must really be liberals posting there. Or maybe Bryant’s lawyers have taken over Free Dominion.
    And for the record I’m a true blue conservative… not that you’ll care.
    And try not to be so emotionally incontinent when you post. One would think Sheppard was your boyfriend. [grin]

  27. Wow, I guess I have hit a raw nerve with the people at Navigator Public Relations. All of the heavyweight anonymous bloggers are trying to discredit my character and point of view. But this isn’t Russia (although Bryant has stated publicly that he wishes it was).
    We’ll leave the ad hominem attacks for another day. Let’s address some of the concerns addressed by Jim, Bob C*#@, and Joey the “true blue conservative” all of whom are likely posting from the same IP number.
    JIM: Perhaps part of the problem is that you are confusing the term homicide (the killing of another human being) with murder (the unlawful killing of a human being with intent and/or malice).
    Brad: Murder is intentional homicide. Deliberately swerving into oncoming traffic to dislodge someone hanging onto the side of a vehicle and running into lamp-posts, trees, a fire-hydrant, and a mailbox before driving over the “murder victims” head certainly gives the appearance of malice. Consider the high rate of speed observed by witnesses (estimates in excess of 90km). Only the newsmedia has speculated Bryant was in a headlock – where are the wounds or injuries as a result of Mr. Shepard’s alleged attack? What about fingerprints on the inside of the vehicle? Why did Bryant accelerate the vehicle? To get away from someone hanging onto the side of his Saab convertible or to injure that unwelcome passenger. Ever hear of the term “reasonable and necessary force” Jimmy?
    JIM: the death wasn’t the result of criminal behaviour that could conceivably lead to homicide
    Brad: You’re absolutely correct. Driving someone into oncoming traffic and then a fire-hydrant and mailbox at a high rate of speed before driving over their head should not have killed Shepard. Bryant’s actions in this regard are quite reasonable.
    JOEY: The deceased was not a murder victim.
    Brad: The jury’s still out on that one but public opinion will suggest otherwise.
    JOEY: How exactly was this drunken methadone addict attached to the car? He wasn’t doing anything stupid like holding onto the steering wheel was he?
    Brad: The police dealt with Mr. Shepard less than an hour before he was murdered. The attending Officer has stated to the media that Mr. Shepard was not intoxicated. There has also been no information released to the media that Mr. Shepard was being treated with methadone. That particular rumour has been facilitated by the PR firm retained by the killer. If Mr. Shepard was holding onto the steering wheel it would not have impaired Bryant’s access to the brake of his Saab convertible.
    JOEY: Street racing? How fast was the car going? You’re the expert, apparently. How many miles per hour?
    Brad: As the Attorney General of Ontario, Bryant passed street racing legislation which forbids the speeding of a vehicle in excess of 50km over the posted limit. With construction on Bloor Street the speed limit is 30km per hour. Eye witness accounts of the event have estimated the speed of Bryant’s Saab convertible to have been in excess of 90km per hour – which means that Bryant violated his own legislation. Bryant’s conduct in this regard can be considered reckless and irresponsible. Speed kills (and so does the former Attorney General of Ontario).
    JOEY: How do you know Bryant hit Sheppard’s bike?
    Brad: Witness testimony reported by the media and videotape from a business in the Church and Bloor Street area which has been broadcast by every television network in Canada.
    JOEY: And try not to be so emotionally incontinent when you post. One would think Sheppard was your boyfriend. [grin]
    Brad: No, I did not know Mr. Shepard. By all accounts he was a decent human being doing the best he could. When Bryant hit his bike, Mr. Shepard should have taken the plate number and called the cops. How could he have known that the driver of the Saab convertible would display such anger and callous disregard for another life.
    Bob C*#@; Sadly for him, his mind seems to work in much the same way as yours. Just some friendly advice, but if something similiar ever happens to you, resist the urge to show the world what a tough guy you are, jot down the plate number and call the police. Think man think. Switch your brain to ON before engaging your mouth.
    Brad: Wow, tough talk Bobby C*#@. And thanks for the good advice. I’ll try to keep it in mind the next time I get into a traffic dispute with a member of the liberal party or any of their mob associates.

  28. Can someone please put me in touch with the folks at Navigator because, apparently, I’m due a few dollars!

  29. Brad;
    There is no tough talk from me at all. I am the one advocating jotting down a licence number and calling the cops. You are the one suggesting it should have been settled mano a mano.
    As far as my advice to not try wrestling a car to a stop, it is not just liberal drivers you need be afraid of. It could just be someone who hates idiots. You would be in the real deep stuff if you ran into one of them.
    Jim;
    Sorry to hear you did not get your money. I got a cheque in the mail Friday morning. Yours should be along any day.

  30. Bob – That’s excellent news. I’m a little confused by Brad’s comments, though. Are you and I co-workers, or have I suffered a psychotic break and am actually conversing with myself. Because, you know, no one could possibly disagree with Brad unless they were actually employed by Bryant!
    Brad – With my new job, do I get an official job title? Is there a list of yippy Liberal jerks who will now put me in their rolodexes? Is there a sliding scale for payment? For example, do I get more to defend Ruby Dhalla if she’s accused of keeping her nanny in a cage than if Bob Rae gets charged with taking off his clothes in public?
    Am I only allowed to work for Navigator, or are there opportunities with Daisy as well? I’m sure the later would make me uber-popular here!

  31. Brad says, “All of the heavyweight anonymous bloggers are trying to discredit my character and point of view.”
    Irony alert!
    “But this isn’t Russia (although Bryant has stated publicly that he wishes it was).”
    Yikes! Do you have a source for that? URL, newspaper, etc?
    “We’ll leave the ad hominem attacks for another day.”
    Yours or ours? [grin]
    Hey Bob & Jim, don’t forget… tonight’s our “multiple personality syndrome” support group. 8 pm sharp. Afterwards, let’s go over to the Zanzibar. It’s Bob’s turn to buy the brewskies.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation