All charges dropped against Michael Bryant, the former Ontario Attorney General who killed a cyclist in August.
http://bicycling.com/blogs/roadright...is-is-justice/
Printable View
All charges dropped against Michael Bryant, the former Ontario Attorney General who killed a cyclist in August.
http://bicycling.com/blogs/roadright...is-is-justice/
Would the decision be the same if the driver was also a "nobody" with a equally checkered past?
There is no justice here.
That stinks. Still hoping there will be justice for the cyclists hit in NC. Haven't been able to find an update.
I was feeling extremely angry when I first read this news. Then I sought the full legal brief that led to the dropping of the charges, and I am a bit more at peace with it now. Not totally, but my anger has shifted a bit.
Sheppard's past was dug out in depth by Bryant's attorney, no doubt about that. I don't know that if the driver was a nobody he would have had the means to defend himself in such a way. Interestingly enough, the driving past of Bryant hasn't been displayed in such an in-depth manner, but he's been in the public eye for long so it would likely have been known if he had brush-ins with the law (especially as a lawyer, who by rule cannot have a criminal record).
But there is pretty clear evidence, from repeated incidents, a number of which were documented by police, that Sheppard had a big anger management problem. I can understand how one would become angry riding in Toronto traffic, but Shootingstar rode her bike a lot there, too, and I doubt that she ever tried to grab a driver's wheel to retaliate, something which Sheppard did more than just the night of the Sheppard-Bryant events. In theory a victim's past should have no bearing on the decision concerning the accused; however in this case it was used to demonstrate that Bryant's fear and reaction were legitimate under the circumstances, and that other people under the same circumstances facing the same man in similar circumstances had felt the same. (And there were a few of those.) Part of the brief is also dedicated to showing that the driving was not reckless under the circumstances, and that the car did not climb on the curb, etc. I don't care much about that part of the story, but it certainly does help Bryant make his case that he was trying to evade a threat in the safest way he could manage in that short amount of time. The total incident lasted less than 30 seconds from stopping at the light to Sheppard hitting his head.
My conclusion is that this is a case of road rage where one of the perpetrators happened to be riding a bike instead of a car. That made him extremely vulnerable in the struggle that ensued. As much as I would have wanted, at one point, this case to add water to the mill of advocacy, now I wish it never happened. It doesn't seem like more cycling infrastructure would have helped Darcy live longer. Maybe he would have died in a different way. I am more angry at the kind of society that leads to people being so angry than anything else. :(
What drives me absolutely mad when I read these things is just the anger and the need to get somewhere so fast that you forget others also have lives, priorities,etc. In my town NO ONE signals. This is dangerous enough for a cyclist. However, at least I generally don't get run off the road. However, in my university town where there were a lot of cyclists, I would often run into road rage drivers who wanted to kill me because some cyclist had wronged them in the past, they were late, etc. I have dealt with my share of BAD cyclists while I was driving. Last night, a couple riding sans-helmets and weaving in and out of the lane endangered themselves. I had to slow down to a crawl not to hit them. I did want to stop and EDUCATE them on how to ride properly and why wearing a helmet can save your life, but never once did I think running them off the road was an appropriate action.
As I said, I am generally lucky and people here favorably see bikers (thankfully), but I don't understand why it is EVER okay to get that angry. This guy obviously has an issue with himself. And now, once more, he is allowed to take it out on another human being - whether than be in a car, a bike, a scooter, runner, etc. Not okay. When will the laws finally be enforced?
Grog, I do hear ya, and I guess I don't really know how the Canadian justice system is different from the US's. But in the USA, in an ordinary case of alleged self-defense, it'll go to the trier of fact unless it's extremely clear-cut. Prosecutorial discretion is only invoked when the politics of a power relationship trump the actual facts, such as politician vs semi-low-life, or automobilist [not using "that word" in deference to some who have complained here, although I HATE using five syllables when two are more descriptive ;)] vs bicyclist/pedestrian.
I don't see how deadly force is ever justifiable against an unarmed person, no matter how crazy he may be acting (and I have a strong feeling that the main difference between Sheppard and Shootingstar is the same one between Bryant and Colorisnt - road rage and poor impulse control being primarily male phenomena). Some US states have begun allowing deadly force when someone won't leave your real estate, maybe they're starting to extend that to people's cars as an extension of their "homes?" :confused::mad::(
I am not sure I understand what you are saying, but just to clarify: here the angry person was not the driver of the car, but the cyclist, who was taking his anger out on another human being (the driver). The law did not get to be enforced against him because he got killed in the process of his anger against a driver.Quote:
Originally Posted by colorisnt
I am also rather unclear about criminal justice in Canada. I tend to agree that I would have wanted this to go to trial. However it is not uncommon in Canada to drop charges before trial if there is a low to nil chance of conviction, especially as tribunals are already overloaded with other stuff. This happens in the favour of low-life folks pretty often as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by OakLeaf
I am totally in agreement with you. In this case however it's not like Bryant hit Sheppard and run him over with his car (or pulled a gun to shoot him), as we might have seen in other cases where the rage was well distributed between the participants. Sheppard was hanging onto and leaning into Bryant's car (a convertible) and Bryant tried to drive away. It doesn't sound like a politely Canadian: "Would you please quit trying to grab my steering wheel?" would have made much of an impression at the time...Quote:
I don't see how deadly force is ever justifiable against an unarmed person, no matter how crazy he may be acting (and I have a strong feeling that the main difference between Sheppard and Shootingstar is the same one between Bryant and Colorisnt - road rage and poor impulse control being primarily male phenomena). Some US states have begun allowing deadly force when someone won't leave your real estate, maybe they're starting to extend that to people's cars as an extension of their "homes?" :confused::mad::(
I hate to find myself writing this, because I was pretty strongly angered and offended when this happened, but I must say I was truly humbled by the reading of the brief. What a sad, sad story for all involved. The brief is available here, if you're curious: http://media.thestar.topscms.com/acr...4123d5fb1b.pdf It doesn't take that long to read.
The link to the legal brief isn't working. Are you sure that's it?
It's gone from its original source.Quote:
Originally Posted by tctrek
Here is another spot:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/pdf/bryant-decision.pdf
I hope it still works. It was working just now.
I find that this Globe & Mail opinion piece summarizes my own anger quite well:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/...rticle1583547/