News   Apr 18, 2024
Long Term Care Facility to be Built at Hennick Bridgepoint Hospital
 717     0 
News   Apr 18, 2024
Canada's Tallest Tower to be Taller, Again
 6.7K     2 
News   Apr 18, 2024
Originate Developments Achieves Zoning Approval for Two Ambitious Residential Projects
 2.5K     4 

Ex-Ontario AG Bryant questioned in death of cyclist

No, he isn't. Murder implies intent.

By contrast, trying to sumo-wrestle a moving car is always stupid.
 
Whoaccio said:
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.
Click to expand...

The other day this homeless dude was walking way too close to me and babbling. I wasn't sure what the "official" way to deal with some crazed and possibly dangerous man getting in my face was, so I stabbed him in the throat with my swiss army knife, and then threw the knife into a crowd of people on the sidewalk. Extenuating circumstances.
 
GraphicMatt said:
The other day this homeless dude was walking way too close to me and babbling. I wasn't sure what the "official" way to deal with some crazed and possibly dangerous man getting in my face was, so I stabbed him in the throat with my swiss army knife, and then threw the knife into a crowd of people on the sidewalk. Extenuating circumstances.
Click to expand...

If your lawyer can argue and win self defence or temporary insantiy. You'll get off clean.

it's not about what you did, but what you can prove.

16. (1) No person is criminally responsible for an act committed or an omission made while suffering from a mental disorder that rendered the person incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of the act or omission or of knowing that it was wrong.

Is it more likely on a balance of probabilities that you became insane in fearing for your life?
 
Last edited:
Okay, let me put this another way, under what scenario is it not the dumbest possible course of action to grab on to a moving car to protect your manhood? This was just some testosterone hyped idiot trying to prove something. There is no point in making him a martyr for the glory of cyclists, as 99.999999% of cyclists wouldn't be stupid enough to pull this.

And to what end? What good could possibly come of all of this? Bryant's career is done, his kid is fatherless, he is dead (obviously). For what? Was he going to grapple the car, contrary to all basic logic and legality, then be hailed as a saint for so blatantly (and stupidly) violating traffic laws? There is no reason for any of this to have happened beyond someone stupidly risking his own life.
 
Whoaccio said:
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.
Click to expand...


But it's ok to be Sylvester Stallone if your driving a car and kill someone and leave the crime scene.
AG will have fun trying to get is ass out of this one, clearly there was lots of witnesses as well it was caught on surveillance tape. Maniacs like him shouldn't be allowed to drive, It's amazing he didn't kill anyone else.
 
If he want to argue aginst the above three, then the argument could be insanity as a result in fearing for his life.
Click to expand...

'Being very scared' isn't enough of an argument to be found not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect. He would have had to have lost the capacity to realize that what he was doing was wrong; there's no way that argument's going to fly in this case.

Also, self-defence requires that the level of force used be no more than what is necessary in the situation; I think he'd have a very hard time arguing that he had to use deadly force (and anyone can see that a situation like that could easily turn deadly) to get rid of a guy in that situation, no matter how big and loud and threatening the guy may have been. If the guy had pulled a knife and was trying to stab him while holding on to his car, then it'd be a different story.

Given what little we know, I think it's way too early to rule out a charge of manslaughter.

leave the crime scene
Click to expand...

From what I understand, he turned the corner, parked, and called the cops. That's not leaving the scene.
 
After driving 90km/h down Bloor on the wrong side of the road for 2 blocks.
Click to expand...

What does his previous behaviour have to do with leaving the scene? As far as I understand it, once he finally knocked the guy off, he turned the corner, parked, and called the cops. Leaving the scene is meant to catch people that do just that - leave.
 
Hank said:
'Being very scared' isn't enough of an argument to be found not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect. He would have had to have lost the capacity to realize that what he was doing was wrong; there's no way that argument's going to fly in this case.

Also, self-defence requires that the level of force used be no more than what is necessary in the situation; I think he'd have a very hard time arguing that he had to use deadly force (and anyone can see that a situation like that could easily turn deadly) to get rid of a guy in that situation, no matter how big and loud and threatening the guy may have been. If the guy had pulled a knife and was trying to stab him while holding on to his car, then it'd be a different story.

Given what little we know, I think it's way too early to rule out a charge of manslaughter.



From what I understand, he turned the corner, parked, and called the cops. That's not leaving the scene.
Click to expand...


Being very scared could, if argued properly, be grounds for irrational act that may at times be reckless.

All they need to do is to argue that he did not cause the death of the cyclist and then all that's left would be little more than driving on the wrong side of the road.

May be in fearing for his life, he lost the ability to properly judge the degree of danger that the cyclist would be placed in if he drove on the wrong side of the road. After all, normal drivers aren’t trained to operate their cars with a bicycle holding onto it.

Also, piggy backing onto cars I believe is an illegal act to begin with. I believe there is a clause somewhere that would protect any negligent acts toward the cyclist after he had committed the first offence by grabbing onto the car in the first place.

That's ontop of the fact where the cyclist CHOSE to grab onto the car. Bryant didn't force him.
 
Last edited:
After driving 90km/h down Bloor on the wrong side of the road for 2 blocks.
Click to expand...

...and on the sidewalk.

No, he isn't. Murder implies intent.
Click to expand...

Apparently he didn't intend to drive on the wrong side of the road, over the speed limit and up on the sidewalk.

As far as I understand it, once he finally knocked the guy off, he turned the corner, parked, and called the cops.
Click to expand...

Sounds like intent.
 
Hank said:
What does his previous behaviour have to do with leaving the scene? As far as I understand it, once he finally knocked the guy off, he turned the corner, parked, and called the cops. Leaving the scene is meant to catch people that do just that - leave.
Click to expand...

he wasn't charged with leaving the scene. no point talking about it.
 
Some of you are just going to have to come to terms with the possibility that maybe both parties were at fault here and that it was not simply a good guy / bad guy situation.
 
In all seriousness, he panicked in the worst way possible. Part of being a good driver is being able to handle unexpected situations - whether it's a sudden stop, a burst tire or the angry cyclist you just sideswiped trying to get you to stop your car - without endangering other people's lives. At this early juncture, it looks like (allegedly) Bryant callously failed to do that.

If I ever commit a crime, I'm totally going to use UD2 as my lawyer.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top