AGTO
Banned
....but, you did.
|
|
|
Ex-Ontario AG Bryant questioned in death of cyclist
- Thread starter Edward
- Start date
....but, you did.
fiendishlibrarian
Active Member
Bloor is pretty tight right now with the construction, what I can *maybe* see happening is that the cyclist (courier?) tried to squeeze by Bryant's car, wasn't as good a rider as he thought he was, crashed into the car, blamed Bryant, lost it, jumped at him, and all hell ensued...
cowpie
New Member
Johnnz said:
I'm thinking if someone hit another person, they probably have a license to be hot-headed, especially if they start to drive off. I'm not commenting on this case specifically because there aren't enough details, but consider who's more vulnerable in this type of situation.
Johnzz
Active Member
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/former-ontario-ag-under-arrest/article1271489/
"Mr. Bryant will be charged with criminal negligence causing death and dangerous driving causing death, a police source tells the Globe"
"Mr. Bryant will be charged with criminal negligence causing death and dangerous driving causing death, a police source tells the Globe"
greenleaf
Senior Member
Are you serious? Under no circumstance do I find this natural or okay to do.
Regardless of whatever altercation started it, I don't see any excuse for him driving off with the biker holding onto the car.
AKS
Senior Member
No matter who is right or wrong, he should have stopped the car and fight over it outside. Maybe even call over the cops if they can't settle it. Having a bicycle clinging a car is very dangerous. The bicycle shouldn't be clinging the car and the car shouldn't continue driving if the bicycle is clinging it closely. I think both have made mistakes and both hot headed.
TOareaFan
Superstar
very true.....if we are going to make assumptions...one assumption we might make in Mr. Bryant's favour is that he may have been afraid of the cyclist (who knows how angry that guy was after being hit) and being in a convertible he loses the ability to simply lock the doors and wait for the police to come and sort things out........the part I don't get is why he had to drive onto the other side of the road and head the wrong way....unless it was to try and knock the guy off the car...which raises all kinds of other questions....
...anyway, now I am guilty of speculation...which was not the intent...the police will sort it all out.
Johnzz
Active Member
UD2
Active Member
I'm only guessing so this is only my opinion.
The lawyer would probably argue that Bryant had reason to believe he was in imminent danger if he had stopped the car, and thus, acted in self defence. The basis of this argument will be the fact that he had asked the cyclist to get off his car, but the cyclist refused. Also be the fact that the nervousness resulting in seeing someone holding on to your top-down convertible and the possibility of an imminent attack would be enough for someone to lose sound judgment and Bryant was not himself during their actions. The fact that the cyclist held on to the side of his car even knowing the dangers of such an act would give Bryant grounds to argue that he did not kill him or did not intentionally or unintentionally to act in a way that would've resulted in his death. I find it hard to believe that the criminal negligence charge would stand.
As for dangerous driving, if you get caught running red light while taking someone to the hospital, there is a likely chance that any charge against you will be reduced or even dropped, therefore in Bryant’s case, driving on the wrong side of the road while he’s life was in danger could be grounds for the same reduced charge argument. Also the fact that the cyclist made a decision to hang on to his car during the altercation even when Bryant had asked him to get off have shown that the cyclist was the person who had made the ultimate decision to grab onto his car, and in turn, get killed doing it. Remember that Bryant didn’t force the cyclist to grab onto his car, the cyclist could have let go at any time and he had at least 100 ft/meters, whatever the measurement was, to do so.
The crown will have to prove beyond all reasonable doublt that the cyclist had no choice but to die and that Bryant was the person directly responsible for his death. This will be very hard seeing that the cyclist made an active decision to hold onto a speeding car. I think the charge in the end would be dangerous driving, and if Bryant is unlucky, then negligence causing bodily harm. But probably nothing criminal or directly causing death.
And before somebody sues me. I'm not a lawyer and this post should not be used for anything other than pure amature leisurely speculation.
Last edited:
TOareaFan
Superstar
^ thanks for saving us the cost of a trial 
Let's carry the hypothetical trial a bit further.....I get the idea that he could argue that he had to drive off to try and get the guy to let go cause he was afraid that by stopping he exposed himself and his passenger to danger.....That I get ...but let me ask another couple of questions:
1. why not just drive away down the correct side of the road? thus not endagering any oncoming vehicles?
2. why the need to cross over into the opposite direction of traffic if not to run the cyclist into trees and mailboxes...so the act of hitting the other guy off of things seems kinda premeditated
3. why the need to drive up onto the sidewalk and endagering however many other people were simply walking and/or watching?
Let's carry the hypothetical trial a bit further.....I get the idea that he could argue that he had to drive off to try and get the guy to let go cause he was afraid that by stopping he exposed himself and his passenger to danger.....That I get ...but let me ask another couple of questions:
1. why not just drive away down the correct side of the road? thus not endagering any oncoming vehicles?
2. why the need to cross over into the opposite direction of traffic if not to run the cyclist into trees and mailboxes...so the act of hitting the other guy off of things seems kinda premeditated
3. why the need to drive up onto the sidewalk and endagering however many other people were simply walking and/or watching?
UD2
Active Member
^ thanks for saving us the cost of a trial
Let's carry the hypothetical trial a bit further.....I get the idea that he could argue that he had to drive off to try and get the guy to let go cause he was afraid that by stopping he exposed himself and his passenger to danger.....That I get ...but let me ask another couple of questions:
1. why not just drive away down the correct side of the road? thus not endagering any oncoming vehicles?
2. why the need to cross over into the opposite direction of traffic if not to run the cyclist into trees and mailboxes...so the act of hitting the other guy off of things seems kinda premeditated
3. why the need to drive up onto the sidewalk and endagering however many other people were simply walking and/or watching?
If dangerous driving is offered as a plea bargin, then Bryant may give a hard consideration into taking it. Then he'll get a ticket or maybe lose his licence, but he wouldn't be a criminal.
If he want to argue aginst the above three, then the argument could be insanity as a result in fearing for his life.
again. for fun and leisurely speculation only.
Last edited:
GraphicMatt
Looking forward to a FRESH START for Toronto
If the allegations are true, I'm kind of thinking this is the kind of thing that deserves jail time. The cyclist died. Trying to shake someone off your car is not rational behaviour. Deadly force is only ever justifiable if you're being confronted by deadly force.
waterloowarrior
Senior Member
yeah really, it's real life, not GTA 4. Unless your life is threatened ( deadly force) there's no excuse to use your vehicle as a weapon to kill another human being.
SimonP
Active Member
Whoaccio
Senior Member
This cyclist is an idiot. He's dead, I'm sorry for his kid and everything, but if you try to be Sylvester Stallone and try to grapple a moving car, you are an idiot. I don't really think there is any "official" way to deal with some idiot trying to ride your car, so how can you charge someone with driving dangerously? Extenuating circumstances.